On the subject of Marijuana "addiction"...

[Egg Nog]

When I was travelling in Asia I heard a term I had never heard before...

Quite a few of the The Germans, Australians, British, etc, that we met along the way told us the marijuana term "Canadian Style" in reference to a joint filled entirely with pot, rather than mixed with tobacco. They said it was almost universal that joints are rolled with tobacco, with the only prominent exception being Canada, hence the term.

I've never heard of anyone locally getting addicted to marijuana, despite Vancouver being a global "cannabis Mecca". I know hundreds of people who smoke pot in varying amounts and not a single one has ever claimed to be addicted to it. I've also never heard of anyone around here mixing tobacco in when smoking it. However, a few people I've talked to (Dutch, British, and Aussie) have mentioned that they have friends who are said to be addicted to pot, and smoke joints regularly to get their fix.

It doesn't take to much mental effort to understand where I'm going with this - it seems very possible that the "addiction" I'm hearing about comes from the tobacco in the joint rather than the marijuana. I remember Drakkie mentioning that he was "addicted to weed" and only managed to get off it with the help of cigarettes.

I'm not trying to claim anything, just pointing out something that a few of you guys might find interesting. By the way, keep in mind we're talking about physical addiction, rather than just mental habituation. Cleaning your room, speeding in a car, or eating your favorite food might seem to be an "addiction" to some people, but of course they are not physically addicted to these things. It's an important distinction.


Any thoughts? Feel free to speak your mind, but lets try to keep it on topic.

[werty]

I would say that the "lifestyle" is more addictive than anything else

[baddabang]

This sounds accurate. I also know plenty of regular cannibus users, none have ever claimed to be addicted. Even if they did it would all be in their head. Since tobacco nautrally has nicotine in it then I would assume that it is causing the addiction. So yeah good point.

I think its just the way people use it, It makes them feel good and happy so why not contine with it. Since there are no physical withdrawl symptoms what do they have to worry about? I quit all by myself with no trouble at all, but then again we never laced anything with tobacco (or cocain for that matter).

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I had a mate who went 'canadian' the whole time. he probably smoked 5-10grams a day.

Weed itself is almost as addictive and more harmful that tobacco. Research shows that although many drug prevention programs focus on the Tablets/Injection style drugs, in many Cases Marijuana, because of it's perspective altering ability, is more harmful in the long-term, because of the attitude of 'it's only cannabis, it's not going to do much damage'.

again it's a user choice thing. I personally don't do any drugs, but thats my choice, and i'm not going to judge others for their actions because I'm not qualified to.

I will only say that addiction to anything, IMHO, is not a good thing.

[Egg Nog]

I would say that the "lifestyle" is more addictive than anything else

Yes, like I mentioned in the last paragraph... habituation applies to many things for many people, like hyper-cleanliness, pot-smoking, laziness, or driving too fast. This is not a true dependency, of course, just something that a person can get accustomed to doing on a regular basis.

[my porsche]

addictions are for pussies.

[Egg Nog]

It seems to me that, barring true physical addiction, the want to continue use of a substance or (for example) driving too fast is the fault of the person rather than the tool. If someone abuses either of these things, it's their bad decision-making that's doing it - the person is to blame rather than the car.


I had a mate who went 'canadian' the whole time. he probably smoked 5-10grams a day.

Weed itself is almost as addictive and more harmful that tobacco. Research shows that although many drug prevention programs focus on the Tablets/Injection style drugs, in many Cases Marijuana, because of it's perspective altering ability, is more harmful in the long-term, because of the attitude of 'it's only cannabis, it's not going to do much damage'.

again it's a user choice thing. I personally don't do any drugs, but thats my choice, and i'm not going to judge others for their actions because I'm not qualified to.

I will only say that addiction to anything, IMHO, is not a good thing.

Thanks for contributing this - hopefully we'll stay on topic maybe even as far as page 2 ;)

Could you expand a little on how you say marijuana is "almost as addictive and more harmful than tobacco"?

[Egg Nog]

addictions are for pussies.

I wouldn't exactly say that anyone addicted to tobacco is a pussy, but I'd definitely say that addiction is nearly always the result of a bad decision. The only exceptions would be somewhere along the lines of a byproduct morphine addiction after a massive surgery.

I often feel that people who try to quit smoking cigarettes don't try hard enough, but then again I don't know what they're going through because I've never felt anything like what they feel. Still, it always seems they should try harder. Everyone I've ever met who's quit smoking has told me it's one of the best decisions they've ever made :)

[baddabang]

Could you expand a little on how you say marijuana is "almost as addictive and more harmful than tobacco"?

My friends mother is a drug counsler or something, and I'v seen some interesting numbers about marijuana being more harmfull than tobacco. Apparenty smoking 3 joints a day would be the same as smoking 20 cigarettes because when you inhale off a joint you hold it longer, so then more chemicals, and tar enter your lungs.

[CdocZ]

Sounds to me like, yes indeed its the tobacco.

Also, I know that yeah, weed isn't the healthiest thing ever, but unless your talking like one extreme potheaded kid, I'd say tobbaco is definitely worse. But I will say that saying that weed is damn near harmless/less bad for you the tobacco by no means at all justifies it's use. Both are bad for the body, one more physically (tobacco), one more mentally until the buildup of too much use occurs (weed). However, I will say that to do a little bit of experimentation with weed, is alot easier to justify then experimenting with tobacco. Why? Because if you are just doing it, let's say once a month, weed will do very little, and it won't become a habit. However, a single ciggarrette can leave you craving just one more.....and then another, and so on.

This is all up for criticism, just be nice about it. This is all based off what I've seen in friends, and in my area.

EDIT: Egg, he probably means what I referred to in this post - The person who says "it's just weed", might first just smoke like once a week. But when they see they enjoy it, they say "its harmless, weed doesn't do anything". So they do it more, and more and more, until they are a genuine pothead - multiple joints a day perhaps even. But the thing is, weed does do SOME damage, not much, but some. This will lead to the person not caring that they are indeed damaging themselves when they smoke the 3rd/4th joints of the day, whereas if they had a tobacco problem, they might realize faster that it is bad for them. The end result, is the person doesn't try to stop it, because marijuana is known as totally harmless by many people, despite the truth being otherwise. It is barely bad, but that little bad-ness, times however many joints they smoke, every DAY is bad.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

It seems to me that, barring true physical addiction, the want to continue use of a substance or (for example) driving too fast is the fault of the person rather than the tool. If someone abuses either of these things, it's their bad decision-making that's doing it - the person is to blame rather than the car.

It's certainly to do with the 'comfort zone' thinking. that is you know what you're limits are and, if you've done it before, what stopping you now?

The bad craftsman always blames his tools - the drug user always blames the addiction or the drug, never himself.


Thanks for contributing this - hopefully we'll stay on topic maybe even as far as page 2 ;)

Could you expand a little on how you say marijuana is "almost as addictive and more harmful than tobacco"?

It's my pleasure to contribute - i've had little contact with marijuana (Save for a few parties where i said 'no, thanks', but my friend, you'll be pleased to know, is clean and sober (for the most part) and making something of his life.

Marijuana is an addictive substance, much like Tobacco in the sense that it triggers the brains pleasure glands into thinking it's a good thing that your smoking.

Research on the net (5 Minutes on Google) and there seems to be more pro than anti Marijuana sites.

I was viewing a TV program called 'Insight' here in Australia, it's a Debate-type program where a group of people come to voice their opinion on an issue. most of the Young people in the Audience were under the impression that Weed was the least harmful of the big 4 (Tobacco, Alcohol, Meth and Weed) that affect youth today. Its right up there because it can lead to long-term side effects mentally. they spoke to a Mental health nurse (Part of the reason we were watching it - My mother used to be a mental health nurse) and she was saying how she deals daily with heavy users who have lost mental capacity because of the altering effects of the drug.

It's not as carcinogenic according to research, but it's still more so than sucking on the end of an exhaust pipe.

Neither of them are healthy habits, but if you were forced to choose, Marijuana is Slightly healthier.

I wouldn't want either in my system - it's a Lazy High, if you will. because you're not having to work for it, you just take a puff and you get the same buzz as climbing a cliff face or whatever.

[mmm_aapls]

I do believe that people get addicted to dope, but I am only talking from personal experiences.

I have never tried, nor will try the stuff. So I don't know what it is like.

But, my mates and family all use the stuff. Even my girl does.

My girlfrined does it recreationally, and does smoke joints with tobacco. I would say she is not addicted to dope, but she is a cigarette smoker so getting high for her is just for then sake of getting high, not addiction.

My brother however has been smoking since a young age and I would consider him addicted. He operates normally when stoned, and is grumpy as all hell when straight. He gets the shakes when straight and even breaks out in cold sweats. All symptoms of physical withdrawl. He wakes up in the morning, rolls over, has a bong. No tobacco at all. He has some serious mental illnesses and many experts blame it on dope.

So, I think it is hard to addicted to dope, but once you are, it can cause serious problems.

[Egg Nog]

My friends mother is a drug counsler or something, and I'v seen some interesting numbers about marijuana being more harmfull than tobacco. Apparenty smoking 3 joints a day would be the same as smoking 20 cigarettes because when you inhale off a joint you hold it longer, so then more chemicals, and tar enter your lungs.

Yes I've heard all of these before too. It's very evident from self-observation that addiction isn't as prominent as most drug prevention classes tout it to be, but it's hard to know what to think as far as physical damage goes. Marijuana has been said to kill brain cells which is biologically impossible for it to do. As far as cancer goes, it's hard to know which studies to believe. I've seen many that say it can cause cancer and many that say it can't. Here are a few links to a study that says it doesn't, although I'm not saying this is true, I'm just pointing out the existence of the study and its results.

http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20050710150925597
http://www.ccguide.org.uk/nocancer.php
http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner07022005.html
http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/tashkinlungcancer.html

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Yes I've heard all of these before too. It's very evident from self-observation that addiction isn't as prominent as most drug prevention classes tout it to be, but it's hard to know what to think as far as physical damage goes. Marijuana has been said to kill brain cells which is biologically impossible for it to do. As far as cancer goes, it's hard to know which studies to believe. I've seen many that say it can cause cancer and many that say it can't. Here are a few links to a study that says it doesn't, although I'm not saying this is true, I'm just pointing out the existence of the study and its results.

http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20050710150925597
http://www.ccguide.org.uk/nocancer.php
http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner07022005.html
http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/tashkinlungcancer.html


Marijuana doesn't kill brain cells, but it affects their connections, so that when signals are trying to be sent to an area of the brain, it slows, or redirects them.

[CdocZ]

Marijuana doesn't kill brain cells, but it affects their connections, so that when signals are trying to be sent to an area of the brain, it slows, or redirects them.

Hence why people who use marijuana alot, may not have been at all ADD-like before, are ADD-like afterwards, except with worse mental side affects. (ADD is brought on by weird brain connections)

[nota]

The term 'Canadian style' is news to me :confused:

Lots of ostensibly unaddictive things can be 'addictive' to certain people. Eg sex, or exercise, buying shoes to excess or being in an abusive relationship. So addiction is not purely related to a substance

I've seen/known plenty of people who abused and overused cannabis enough that you'd categorise it as dependancy (this without tobacco) while other users go through life unaffected. So I guess its down to the individual user and how susceptible they are (or make themselves vulnerable to) addiction - whatever that may be

There are some very interesting discoveries currently being made about genes, in particular 'addiction genes' which make certain people vulnerable to various addictions. So its not all just psychological. Some people through their genes are physically at greater risk of being addicted to alcohol, or to nicotine, and there might be a particular gene that makes some of us especially vulnerable to a combination of alcohol & nicotine

Btw to anyone who smokes dope but is not yet addicted to nicotine, please don't mix them. Combining the two is a sure fire way into tobacco addiction

[IBrake4Rainbows]

The difference being that Marijuana is a depressant instead of a stimulant.

most people with ADD (I think it's a bit of a joke myself - it's about self discipline, to be drugged up because your a bit hyper is stupid and a quick out) live normal lives. the effects of Marijuana on an individual can be devastating.

[nota]

I was viewing a TV program called 'Insight' here in Australia, it's a Debate-type program where a group of people come to voice their opinion on an issue. most of the Young people in the Audience were under the impression that Weed was the least harmful of the big 4 (Tobacco, Alcohol, Meth and Weed) that affect youth today. Its right up there because it can lead to long-term side effects mentally. they spoke to a Mental health nurse (Part of the reason we were watching it - My mother used to be a mental health nurse) and she was saying how she deals daily with heavy users who have lost mental capacity because of the altering effects of the drug.
Watching too much television can also lead to long-term side effects mentally

Pardon me for straight talking, but anyone who believes that the personal risks imposed by Tobacco Meth or Alchohol use is as 'right up there' as using Marijuana, is 'right out there' imo. That view is propaganda, not fact

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Watching too much television can also lead to long-term side effects mentally

Pardon me for straight talking, but anyone who believes that the personal risks imposed by Tobacco Meth or Alchohol use is as 'right up there' as using Marijuana, is 'right out there' imo. That view is propaganda, not fact

You're entitled to your opinion.

If you seriously think a Mind-altering drug does not have equal or worse long-term effects than these proven killers, I happen to think you're wrong.

And wheres the proof that Too much TV alters your mind? It's a channel based thing, you realise :p

[targa]

"canadian style" is the only way I've ever used/heard of in joint rolling...I mean, I've used a hukkah (sp?) with layered tobacco and marijuana, but never anything else

as for addiction, I agree it's more of the life style that one becomes "addicted" to

[CdocZ]

The difference being that Marijuana is a depressant instead of a stimulant.

most people with ADD (I think it's a bit of a joke myself - it's about self discipline, to be drugged up because your a bit hyper is stupid and a quick out) live normal lives. the effects of Marijuana on an individual can be devastating.

ADD meds quite literally do screw people up. I for one, will say that due to personal experience. I do however, know people, for whom meds work like a dream - off it, they are ADD, and totally out of control, whatever comes to their head is what they do, but on it, they can sit down and work for hours on end, whenever they want. It really depends on how you react to meds. However, I say that if a kid doesn't respond all too well to meds, DON'T LEAVE HIM ON THEM for the next decade.....(sorry, I get worked up about this, lol)

[Egg Nog]

Another question:

With this, I kinda wonder how much general social acceptance plays into the concept of maturity. Do you guys seem to notice a lot of people in your area who use marijuana totally irresponsibly? The vast majority of users I've met around Vancouver use it infrequently and are generally pretty responsible as far as things like this go. I get the impression that it's fairly similar in Holland. (Wouter, correct me if I'm wrong!).

[mclaren_crazy]

I did a project on this, with marjiuana, the main chemicle is THC (tetrahydracannibanol) (spelling?) but that substance has no properties of a physical addiction, where the addiction comes from is mental, when the user abuses the substance the become "bored" with reality and therefore find it nessisary to try and be high as often as possible

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Another question:

With this, I kinda wonder how much general social acceptance plays into the concept of maturity. Do you guys seem to notice a lot of people in your area who use marijuana totally irresponsibly? The vast majority of users I've met around Vancouver use it infrequently and are generally pretty responsible as far as things like this go. I get the impression that it's fairly similar in Holland. (Wouter, correct me if I'm wrong!).

The few People I see using weed are most definately using it irresponsibly, without supervision or thought of the consequences.

It's quite disappointing because many of them are reasonably smart people who should know better.

The main issue is cost - when people can afford it they go all out.

[Egg Nog]

The few People I see using weed are most definately using it irresponsibly, without supervision or thought of the consequences.

It's quite disappointing because many of them are reasonably smart people who should know better.

The main issue is cost - when people can afford it they go all out.

Seriously? Woah... that's an entirely different scenario than I'm used to seeing. Interesting, it does help bring to light a little more of our different perspectives. I can see how it would piss you off. I hate being around the type of people who do little else but smoke weed, but luckily I rarely see them. The one thing that's always bothered me the most is when people heavily smoke (or smoke at all) during the school or university terms.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

They do a lot else than smoke weed, it's just when they do it's all their into. for like 3 days.

Term smoking is almost non-existant, so I can imagine it's one of those 'it's the school holidays, I'm having fun, dammit' scenario.

[SilverG35SportC]

I have not heard the term "Canadian Style" either. For that matter, I believe that when you put tobacco in weed it could get you addicted to tobacco obviously, but not the weed. Admittedly i have both smoked weed in a joint with just weed and with tobacco. The only reason I can think of for adding tobacco is to highten the high. From experience and from word of mouth I also notice the same thing but that does not mean that tobacco has to be smoked with weed. i'd prefer not but just for the fact that I dislike ciggarettes. I also have not heard(not just me making it up, actual research on my part to know what weed does to my brain) that weed is addictive in any way physically. But yes, maybe in the case of a hard-core marijuana smoker they could feel that they 'need' it but it is NOT the same type of addiction. One is mental and one is physical, ciggarettes being the latter.

[nota]

If you seriously think a Mind-altering drug does not have equal or worse long-term effects than these proven killers, I happen to think you're wrong.
Do you happen to think that pot users are more liable to aggression and violent psychosis than meth users? Do more pot smokers die from cancers than tobacco smokers? I suppose more women get bashed by stoned partners than drunk partners, and more road deaths are caused by marijuana than booze



Most of my schoolfriends smoked dope. Many of them have been smoking it for over thirty years now, yet this hasn't stopped them from atttaining 'high' positions (excuse the pun) within business and the public service, some in very senior positions

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Do you happen to think that pot users are more liable to aggression and violent psychosis than meth users? Do more pot smokers die from cancers than tobacco smokers? I suppose more women get bashed by stoned partners than drunk partners, and more road deaths are caused by marijuana than booze

Most of my schoolfriends smoked dope. Many of them have been smoking it for over thirty years now, yet this hasn't stopped them from atttaining 'high' positions (excuse the pun) within business and the public service, some in very senior positions

Do they get violent? Yes.
Do (Heavy) users enter psychosis? Yes.
Do they Hit Women? Yes.
Do they eventually get cancer? Anyone who breathes in harmful substances enough is bound to, why should this be any different?
It's the same as ANY mind altering, breathed in drug - it's going to cause changes in mood which can make the most rational person do the stupidest things.

Congratulations to your friends for moderation. I'm not trying to stop the use of Marijuana, I just happen to think that if you're going to smoke it you must first understand that it can, potentially, be harmful.

We don't know how many road deaths are caused by Marijuana compared with Alcohol because few studies (If any) have been undertaken to find out the numbers. no doubt the social acceptability of Alcohol means more people use it, however.

I wonder if their employers know about their drug use - My father is also fairly high up in the public service, and is entirely clean (believe me, I've checked) save for the odd beer/red wine glass. Marijuana is still illegal for a reason - because it can't be regulated to a level where the effects can be properly tested.

That and the government still doesn't get a cut in it's sale :p (The Cynic in me rears it's ugly head)

IMHO (i'm emphasising that) I don't like weed because i'm a bit of a control freak. I don't get drunk, I don't smoke and I don't take drugs because if i'm having a good time I want to be in control of it and wish to remember events the following day.

If you (And your friends) can regulate your use thats fine, it's a free country (As i've said, I'm not going to stand in your way) but I'm not going to get involved.

[Egg Nog]

IB4R, I appreciate your open-mindedness but I don't know where the hell you're coming from on that last post. I've never seen or heard of any users of any kind going through true psychosis, let alone getting violent or hitting women.

What's that about? If there's one thing that smoking pot doesn't do, it's making a person violent. I've also never heard a single case relating marijuana to cancer, so while I still think it's a possibility during heavy use, I'd be interested to see some real-world proof.

[nota]

Do they get violent? Yes.
I've never known anyone to exhibit violence when stoned. No I'm definately not suggesting or recommending you or anyone else try the drug, but anyone who's tried it would understand why its not intrinsically 'violent' .. unlike meth or booze etc


Do (Heavy) users enter psychosis? Yes.
They potentially can .. not 'do' which is a big difference. Non-users can also suffer psychosis

Do you know the ratio of induced psychosis from amphetamines vs dope? Nope


Do they Hit Women? Yes.
Again a misleading assertion. Btw are you aware of the medicinal applications of cannibanoids?

Congratulations to your friends for moderation. I'm not trying to stop the use of Marijuana, I just happen to think that if you're going to smoke it you must first understand that it can, potentially, be harmful. Very true, no contest :)

We don't know how many road deaths are caused by Marijuana compared with Alcohol because few studies (If any) have been undertaken to find out the numbers. no doubt the social acceptability of Alcohol means more people use it, however.
"The AGE 21 October 1998 pA5;
CANBERRA TIMES 21 October 1998 p4

THE LARGEST STUDY EVER DONE linking road accidents with drugs and alcohol has found drivers with cannabis in their blood were no more at risk than those who were drug-free. In fact, the findings by a pharmacology team from the University of Adelaide and Transport South Australia showed drivers who had smoked marijuana were marginally LESS LIKELY TO HAVE AN ACCIDENT than those who were drug-free. A study spokesman, Dr Jason White, said the difference was not great enough to be statistically significant but could be explained by anecdotal evidence that marijuana smokers were more cautious and drove more slowly because of altered time perception.

The study of 2,500 accidents, which matched the blood alcohol levels of injured drivers with details from police reports, found drug-free drivers caused the accidents in [b]53.5 per cent of cases.
Injured drivers with a blood-alcohol concentration of more than 0.05 per cent were culpable in nearly 90 per cent of accidents they were involved in.
Drivers with cannabis in their blood were less likely to cause an accident, with a culpability rate of 50.6 per cent.

The study has policy implications for those who argue drug detection should be a new focus for road safety. Dr White said the study showed the importance of concentrating efforts on alcohol rather than other drugs.

This information was posted by the library of The Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia (ADCA). Requests for copies of newsclips can be directed to the library by phone 02 62811002, fax 02 6282 7364
or e-mail [email protected]."

In short, drivers with THC in their system had accident-culpability rates slightly below sober drivers, and of course way below drunk drivers


I wonder if their employers know about their drug use - My father is also fairly high up in the public service, and is entirely clean (believe me, I've checked) save for the odd beer/red wine glass. Marijuana is still illegal for a reason - because it can't be regulated to a level where the effects can be properly tested.

That and the government still doesn't get a cut in it's sale :p (The Cynic in me rears it's ugly head)
Yes, prohibition because its hard to tax. And historical political pressure via USA. History shows that prohibition is a failed tactic

IMHO (i'm emphasising that) I don't like weed because i'm a bit of a control freak. I don't get drunk, I don't smoke and I don't take drugs because if i'm having a good time I want to be in control of it and wish to remember events the following day.
Good for you

If you (And your friends) can regulate your use thats fine, it's a free country (As i've said, I'm not going to stand in your way) but I'm not going to get involved.
I never said I used it. But in any case its not a 'free' country is it? People are still imprisioned or otherwise punished for mere personal use! Meanwhile the cost to our community of (freely advertised & promoted) alcohol use amounts to billions of dollars every year, likewise for tobacco

And you did get involved imo through propagating false info :)

[IBrake4Rainbows]

IB4R, I appreciate your open-mindedness but I don't know where the hell you're coming from on that last post. I've never seen or heard of any users of any kind going through true psychosis, let alone getting violent or hitting women.

What's that about? If there's one thing that smoking pot doesn't do, it's making a person violent. I've also never heard a single case relating marijuana to cancer, so while I still think it's a possibility during heavy use, I'd be interested to see some real-world proof.

I can only go on what I've experienced and what I've heard.

Marijuana makes one of my friends a wee bit paranoid. when we tried to calm him down one night, he lashes out, he struck one of my female friends. He understood it was wrong and apoligised, but that experience sort of put me off him for a while.

Long term use affects the way the brain sends signals, which, depending on what signals are being affected, cause undesired anger or agression.

ANY drug, if used significantly over a period of time, affects the person taking it. in good or bad ways. It's just common logic that one of these effects could be agression or anger.

Alcohol is a Depressant, much like Weed. But it can still affect people in such a way that they lash out and can attack people.

Theres this sort of theory that Marijuana is meant to 'relax' or 'mellow out' some people, but because it's such an unknown quantity and it's potency can vary, so can it's effect.

This is of course from personal experience, but there you go.

[Rockefella]

I can only go on what I've experienced and what I've heard.

Marijuana makes one of my friends a wee bit paranoid. when we tried to calm him down one night, he lashes out, he struck one of my female friends. He understood it was wrong and apoligised, but that experience sort of put me off him for a while.

I've seen a very similar thing happen, so I'll agree there.


Long term use affects the way the brain sends signals, which, depending on what signals are being affected, cause undesired anger or agression.

ANY drug, if used significantly over a period of time, affects the person taking it. in good or bad ways. It's just common logic that one of these effects could be agression or anger.

Agreed, my friend smokes weed A LOT, and he is clearly slower, less responsive, and basically, not as smart. The anger appears too, but VERY rarely. Anger I've seen appear multiple times from salvia use, but rarely marijuana.


Alcohol is a Depressant, much like Weed. But it can still affect people in such a way that they lash out and can attack people.

Theres this sort of theory that Marijuana is meant to 'relax' or 'mellow out' some people, but because it's such an unknown quantity and it's potency can vary, so can it's effect.

Well, yes and no. I think you're generalizing the subject a bit here.


This is of course from personal experience, but there you go.
Ditto.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I've never known anyone to exhibit violence when stoned. No I'm definately not suggesting or recommending you or anyone else try the drug, but anyone who's tried it would understand why its not intrinsically 'violent' .. unlike meth or booze etc

Refer to the above post for a first hand account. he was sober, also.
They potentially can .. not 'do' which is a big difference. Non-users can also suffer psychosis

No contest. It's still a high number of heavy users that can suffer from psychosis.

Do you know the ratio of induced psychosis from amphetamines vs dope? Nope

Do you?

Again a misleading assertion. Btw are you aware of the medicinal applications of cannibanoids?
Very true, no contest :)

"The AGE 21 October 1998 pA5;
CANBERRA TIMES 21 October 1998 p4

THE LARGEST STUDY EVER DONE linking road accidents with drugs and alcohol has found drivers with cannabis in their blood were no more at risk than those who were drug-free. In fact, the findings by a pharmacology team from the University of Adelaide and Transport South Australia [govt dept] showed drivers who had smoked marijuana were marginally LESS LIKELY TO HAVE AN ACCIDENT than those who were drug-free. A study spokesman, Dr Jason White, said the difference was not great enough to be statistically significant but could be explained by anecdotal evidence that marijuana smokers were more cautious and drove more slowly because of altered time perception.

The study of 2,500 accidents, which matched the blood alcohol levels of injured drivers with details from police reports, found drug-free drivers caused the accidents in 53.5 per cent of cases.
Injured drivers with a blood-alcohol concentration of more than 0.05 per cent were culpable in nearly 90 per cent of accidents they were involved in.
Drivers with cannabis in their blood were less likely to cause an accident, with a culpability rate of 50.6 per cent.

The study has policy implications for those who argue drug detection should be a new focus for road safety. Dr White said the study showed the importance of concentrating efforts on alcohol rather than other drugs.

This information was posted by the library of The Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia (ADCA). Requests for copies of newsclips can be directed to the library by phone 02 62811002, fax 02 6282 7364
or e-mail [email protected]."

In short, drivers with THC in their system had accident-culpability rates slightly below sober drivers, and of course way below drunk drivers

Interesting study. so because of the effect of THC in their system, they're less likely to have an accident than a Drunk person.

What about against the rest of the population, who drives sober?
Yes, prohibition because its hard to tax. And historical political pressure via USA. History shows that prohibition is a failed tactic

Quite true. There's this air of rebellion with Youth today in regards to weed - I smoke so I'm screwing the man, man. It's stupid.

I actually think regulating would prevent much of it's appeal.

Good for you

Thankyou.

I never said I used it. But in any case its not a 'free' country is it? People are still imprisioned or otherwise punished for mere personal use! Meanwhile the cost to our community of (freely advertised & promoted) alcohol use amounts to billions of dollars every year, likewise for tobacco

The difference being that because the government actually gets a cut of their sales, they can justify the 'human' cost.

it's a disgusting thought, but it's the only rationale I can find.

I made an assumption regarding your use, I apologise.

And you did get involved imo through propagating false info :)

You're entitled to you're opinion. I just happen to think it's better to be safe than sorry.


Well, yes and no. I think you're generalizing the subject a bit here.

Perhaps, but it's just from personal experience.

[ScionDriver]

I definetely know people who smoked weed in the past and some that still do and they all claim the addicted to the atomsphere and not the actual pot. I don't know if they mixed in tobacco though, I don't think they did though, but most of them have all quit cold turkey or were able to walk away from it no problem so I don't think it is that addicting.

[targa]

I have a friend that gets really hyper when he gets high. one time, he stole another friends shoes and threw them pretty far into the woods behind the house, no one is ever violent, though

[CdocZ]

I have a friend that gets really hyper when he gets high. one time, he stole another friends shoes and threw them pretty far into the woods behind the house, no one is ever violent, though

Hahahahah I find that actually very funny. I'd hate to lose a pair of shoes. But that is still pretty funny.

[Rockefella]

Hahahahah I find that actually very funny. I'd hate to lose a pair of shoes. But that is still pretty funny.
I have this one friend who has this really bad tolerance for marijuana, which puts him into a 'retarded' trance for about 30 minutes to an hour. We went bowling, and he and my two other friends smoked on the way there. The kid Zach just sat motionless staring into thin air. It's fun to pick on people when they're high though, because they either laugh or have no idea what's going on.

I personally hate marijuana... I don't like the high, at all.

[nota]

No contest. It's still a high number of heavy users that can suffer from psychosis.

Do you know the ratio of induced psychosis from amphetamines vs dope? Nope

Do you?
Well you were the one who compared/aligned the deleterious effects of dope to hard drugs like meth (see your quote below) although you seem to have no facts to back up that assertion

Originally Posted by IBrake4Rainbows
If you seriously think a Mind-altering drug does not have equal or worse long-term effects than these proven killers, I happen to think you're wrong.


Interesting study. so because of the effect of THC in their system, they're less likely to have an accident than a Drunk person.

What about against the rest of the population, who drives sober?
If you read it again you'll notice that legal, sober drivers were (slightly) more likely to be culpable (ie the causal party) for accidents than were stoned drivers!



You're entitled to you're opinion. I just happen to think it's better to be safe than sorry.
Thats true of many things in life. Ultimately we are personally responsible for our decisions and life-choices, especially as adults. As to safe not sorry, I choose not to go to church and happily risk my resultant non-reincarnation ;)

[targa]

I have this one friend who has this really bad tolerance for marijuana, which puts him into a 'retarded' trance for about 30 minutes to an hour. We went bowling, and he and my two other friends smoked on the way there. The kid Zach just sat motionless staring into thin air. It's fun to pick on people when they're high though, because they either laugh or have no idea what's going on.

I personally hate marijuana... I don't like the high, at all.oh, I used to smoke every now and then, but I used a nugged out gravity bong one time, I'm way off it now.....I did the trance thing, although I did know all too well what was going on, I just didn't want to be where I was with the people with which I was, it wasn't fun

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Well you were the one who compared/aligned the deleterious effects of dope to hard drugs like meth (see your quote below) although you seem to have no facts to back up that assertion

I based it on logic. I'll Fleet myself here and repeat - anything mind altering, over time, may have adverse effects.

The mental health beds wasted on Meth and Marijuana addicts should of course be proof enough (God, I AM sounding like fleet :p)



If you read it again you'll notice that legal, sober drivers were (slightly) more likely to be culpable (ie the causal party) for accidents than were stoned drivers!

Perhaps they should stick weed in the water then.

The study itself claims the difference was Incremental and could have been put down to Doped-up drivers being a little more careful because of their altered time perception.

What happened if a Kid jumped out in front of them (to use a Cliche) and, because they're slower on the uptake, they didn't get to the brake pedal in time?

Thats true of many things in life. Ultimately we are personally responsible for our decisions and life-choices, especially as adults. As to safe not sorry, I choose not to go to church and happily risk my resultant non-reincarnation ;)

You're already holy enough ;)

I'm hedging my bets personally.

If you want to smoke, essentially, be prepared to pay the consequences.

[nota]

I've stored that study in full on my other PC and it can be found on the net. The basic results were .. for this long term, comprehensive & scientifically-correct AU study .. that in real-life it was proven that the rates of accident-culpability causing injury or death for stoned drivers were virtually equal to sober drivers. In fact culpability was slightly higher for sober drivers, although that difference was statistically unimportant

Btw as for drug-driving I'm of the view that, apart from alcohol, its legal prescription drugs that poses the greatest drug risk re road safety. But for some 'strange' reason governments refuse to tackle this issue

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Two words - Party Funding.

I'm not questioning the validity of the study. it's just that the drivers who were stoned were obviously experienced because they took precautions.

If you're going to 'Fly' home, I can think of worse ways to do it than to be alert and aware.

[nota]

Two words - Party Funding.

I'm not questioning the validity of the study. it's just that the drivers who were stoned were obviously experienced because they took precautions.

If you're going to 'Fly' home, I can think of worse ways to do it than to be alert and aware.
Sorry but the doped drivers were not 'obviously experienced' but instead were an accurate reflection of all marijuana-affected drivers, because the study was not selective and did not exclude 'novice' smokers

It examined causality involving serious injury or death and was entirely representational of the motoring community as a whole - whether drunk, doped or sober

Just in my personal experience I've seen drivers who were absolutely out of their minds on prozac and incapable of responsibility

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I disagree - the only Drivers selected were those who had accidents, so it was selective :p

You're keen on showing this study as The fairest and balanced of them all. Drink Driving is a problem, as is medicated driving or Drug Driving, but I'm surprised the figures came out that 53 % of accidents were caused by normal drivers. what were the parameters? did it take into account car condition, weather? road condition? location?

Too many variables IMHO.

Agreed about Drugged drivers - there are limitations enforced on some people on medication that they can't drive, but the attitude of 'since my doctor prescribed it, it must be good' prevails.

[nota]

I disagree - the only Drivers selected were those who had accidents, so it was selective :p

You're keen on showing this study as The fairest and balanced of them all. Drink Driving is a problem, as is medicated driving or Drug Driving, but I'm surprised the figures came out that 53 % of accidents were caused by normal drivers. what were the parameters? did it take into account car condition, weather? road condition? location?

Too many variables IMHO.
For gods sake where do you get this from?

I never claimed it was "fairest and balanced of them all". But it IS scientific, and the results were accurate - respectably accurate enough to be presented and tabled in Parliament - which is damn lot more than the facile twaddle you present as fact via Mum

Here's a c&p of the actual transcript. If that's not good enough for you then I'm done (got better things to do) because as the saying goes:

You can lead a whore to water but you can't make her think :rolleyes:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"PARLIAMENT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
THIRTIETH REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE
South Australian Rural Road Safety Strategy
Tabled in the House of Assembly and ordered to be printed 8 December 1998
Second Session, Forty–Ninth Parliament
__________________________________________________ ______________


Dr White (Transport SA) spoke of a recently completed research project on the prevalence and role of alcohol and other drugs in road crashes in South Australia. He said ‘I will now turn to the results. We replicated the results for alcohol. With alcohol in your blood, you are far more likely to have been responsible for a crash than an innocent victim.
There is a dose response relationship for alcohol: the higher your level of alcohol, the more likely you were to have been responsible for the crash. The surprising finding to many people comes with respect to marijuana, or cannabis. There was no relationship between responsibility for the crash and cannabis.

So, people who had cannabis in their blood were no more likely to be responsible for the crash than people who had no drugs or alcohol in their blood. Many people find this surprising, but it replicates other findings from Australia with fatally injured, or killed, drivers and some findings from overseas.

Our results are probably some of the most reliable in the world, for various reasons. We had larger sample than other studies have had: we had 2 500 crash drivers. And ours were non-selective: we did not just get blood from drivers who the police suspected of having done something wrong. We had a good, totally representative sample.

We used quantitative assays rather than just screening tests, whereas other studies had just used screening tests—‘yes’, ‘no’, for the drugs. We obtained the levels of drugs involved. And we used a more sophisticated level of responsibility analysis than other people have used: we did not just go on whether the police ticked the box for whether the driver was responsible or not. So, I believe that our results are pretty substantial, and our finding that cannabis was not a causal factor in the crashes in which it was present is a fairly strong finding.’
(Evidence, p72"

[Spastik_Roach]

Well...This is hardly reliable but I thought i'd add it anyway.

When I was reading the Jimi Hendrix biography, it would talk about how he would get very violent when drunk, and lash out at people (both male and female). However no such violence was recorded when he was stoned...

[eyebrows]

with pot its really hit and miss as to how it will react with your body, as it was said at the beginning of the thread that pot has perspective altering ability, but this is all based on a reaction between the THC and the different chemicals each person has that determine a sence ie touch etc (why most pot heads find tv so amusing when there high) with each person the balance of chemicals is different so the effect it has is different thats why people who use pot have such a different reaction to it. With cancer pot is usually associated with throat cancer because when they hold it its usually mainly in the throat not lungs (what i herd not sure if its right). Addiction from what ive seen it is, i only know one person who has only done it once everyone else does it all the time so i would say it is (whether its mental or physical does it matter its still an addictaion).

[RazaBlade]

One of my friends has done an essay on marijuana and toxicity, along with other stuff. Will try and eventually get a hold of his essay....

[d-quik]

I had a mate who went 'canadian' the whole time. he probably smoked 5-10grams a day.

Weed itself is almost as addictive and more harmful that tobacco. Research shows that although many drug prevention programs focus on the Tablets/Injection style drugs, in many Cases Marijuana, because of it's perspective altering ability, is more harmful in the long-term, because of the attitude of 'it's only cannabis, it's not going to do much damage'.1. 5-10 grams is insane
2. weed has no chemicals that causes addiction. any type of "addiction"-like features are just mental. sorta like when a chubby kid says "im addicted to mcdonalds". not technically an addiction.
3. from what you have told us from other posts it seems like the weed that these people you know are probably dipped in windex or whatver. it is not normal. the side-effects are not very weedish. if anything it SUPPRESSES my anger and violence when I use it.
4. again, from what you have told us from other posts it seems like you just use logic that anything that affects you like weed has long-term effects. I agree with this. so does advil, tylenol, aspirin, and codene. in fact, all four of them are actually addictive. but those things don't get a bad rep
Apparenty smoking 3 joints a day would be the same as smoking 20 cigarettes because when you inhale off a joint you hold it longer, so then more chemicals, and tar enter your lungs.1. a "joint" and a cigarette varies in size, so those stats can be skewed
2. "holding it in" has nothing to do with how bad marijuana is...

[drakkie]

Marijuana doesn't kill brain cells, but it affects their connections, so that when signals are trying to be sent to an area of the brain, it slows, or redirects them.

how noticiable for me :( I'd say i lost about 10% of my ability to think logically and about 10% of my memory as well :(

Egg-nog, you are completely true the nicotine addicts.My best friend and I discussed it recently as well :)
I am a now "trying-to-quit" smoker. After my exams are over i'll have to accept being a few weeks grumpy and bad-feeling :(
In holland we smoke pot usually with about 70-80% tobacco, simply cos you would be stoned after one inhalation and to last with the stuff longer.

I have tried this and other drugs as well. However my consumption of marihuana was up to almost half a kilo on one day !!! I have passed out various times that day and puked ( BLACK!!). My friends were about to call an ambulance when i became consious again... (not that they were really able to think :)...)

Personally if i had known the effects would bear with me in this manner and for this long, i would/should have never started it. I can feel the effects every single day :( It certainly put me into a depression and i have had some VERY hard weeks/months. Two people out of our group of 6 have been to a drug clinic (not only for marihuana) and one killed himself high on hash.

The addiction to it might not be a completely physical one, but also a mental one. You might not realise it,but going on UCP every day,also is a mental addiction. You have plenty without realising they are addictions.
the bad thing with marihuana and other drugs is that they make you think,that other drugs are even better and you tries these potentially more dangerous ones out as well............

Glad i didnt smoke a single joint for a year now:rolleyes:

[drakkie]

1. 5-10 grams is insane
2. weed has no chemicals that causes addiction. any type of "addiction"-like features are just mental. sorta like when a chubby kid says "im addicted to mcdonalds". not technically an addiction.
3. from what you have told us from other posts it seems like the weed that these people you know are probably dipped in windex or whatver. it is not normal. the side-effects are not very weedish. if anything it SUPPRESSES my anger and violence when I use it.
4. again, from what you have told us from other posts it seems like you just use logic that anything that affects you like weed has long-term effects. I agree with this. so does advil, tylenol, aspirin, and codene. in fact, all four of them are actually addictive. but those things don't get a bad rep
1. a "joint" and a cigarette varies in size, so those stats can be skewed
2. "holding it in" has nothing to do with how bad marijuana is...

1) only minor amoutns compared to my daily use at one time :(
2) its a mental addiction,not a physical one
3) effects vary, some people get super-aggresive and some are just staring into nothing,completely pacified. I used to be a pacified starer,but some friends weren't. This also depends on your starting mood,it makes your feeling s much stronger
4) because those have a positive effect as well

-1) a joint of our group tended to be much bigger as a cigarette. I can really imagine anything smaller as a cigarette to be honest. Once we made one that was almost 50 centimetres with almost 90 grams in it :p
-2) No, but it does have an effect on it. It depends on how you use it.

[R34GTR]

The fact that it has a link with scizophrenia , should be a good warning to everyone who is willing to try it. The short time that it brings you good feelings are in no comparison to the physical and mental harm that is caused afterwards (not only to ones self but other people aswell)

[IBrake4Rainbows]

1. 5-10 grams is insane
2. weed has no chemicals that causes addiction. any type of "addiction"-like features are just mental. sorta like when a chubby kid says "im addicted to mcdonalds". not technically an addiction.

We've gone through how this is more of a lifestyle addiction than an actual addiction.

3. from what you have told us from other posts it seems like the weed that these people you know are probably dipped in windex or whatver. it is not normal. the side-effects are not very weedish. if anything it SUPPRESSES my anger and violence when I use it.

Different people can react in different ways. considering he was serfectly pober and not a usually violent person, I can think of little else that brought on this.

4. again, from what you have told us from other posts it seems like you just use logic that anything that affects you like weed has long-term effects. I agree with this. so does advil, tylenol, aspirin, and codene. in fact, all four of them are actually addictive. but those things don't get a bad rep1. a "joint" and a cigarette varies in size, so those stats can be skewed

An excellent point, which is why much of Marijuana research is a little off.

And, if you'd check throughout this thread, Prescription drug abuse is getting more of a bad wrap than Weed abuse.

2. "holding it in" has nothing to do with how bad marijuana is...

I disagree here - 'holding it in' would cause more damage than just in-out because you're allowing it time to be absorbed.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

For gods sake where do you get this from?

I never claimed it was "fairest and balanced of them all". But it IS scientific, and the results were accurate - respectably accurate enough to be presented and tabled in Parliament - which is damn lot more than the facile twaddle you present as fact via Mum.

If you checked I never said mine was accurate or fact. thats what IMHO usually means.

I'm just saying that there are too many variables in such tests.

That and my First hand experience of a Violent stoner.

Here's a c&p of the actual transcript. If that's not good enough for you then I'm done (got better things to do) because as the saying goes:

You can lead a whore to water but you can't make her think :rolleyes:

Who you calling a whore ? :p

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"PARLIAMENT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
THIRTIETH REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE
South Australian Rural Road Safety Strategy
Tabled in the House of Assembly and ordered to be printed 8 December 1998
Second Session, Forty–Ninth Parliament
__________________________________________________ ______________


Dr White (Transport SA) spoke of a recently completed research project on the prevalence and role of alcohol and other drugs in road crashes in South Australia. He said ‘I will now turn to the results. We replicated the results for alcohol. With alcohol in your blood, you are far more likely to have been responsible for a crash than an innocent victim.
There is a dose response relationship for alcohol: the higher your level of alcohol, the more likely you were to have been responsible for the crash. The surprising finding to many people comes with respect to marijuana, or cannabis. There was no relationship between responsibility for the crash and cannabis.

So, people who had cannabis in their blood were no more likely to be responsible for the crash than people who had no drugs or alcohol in their blood. Many people find this surprising, but it replicates other findings from Australia with fatally injured, or killed, drivers and some findings from overseas.

Our results are probably some of the most reliable in the world, for various reasons. We had larger sample than other studies have had: we had 2 500 crash drivers. And ours were non-selective: we did not just get blood from drivers who the police suspected of having done something wrong. We had a good, totally representative sample.

According to them of course, their unlikely to bad mouth their own study, esp. when it suits their needs.

We used quantitative assays rather than just screening tests, whereas other studies had just used screening tests—‘yes’, ‘no’, for the drugs. We obtained the levels of drugs involved. And we used a more sophisticated level of responsibility analysis than other people have used: we did not just go on whether the police ticked the box for whether the driver was responsible or not. So, I believe that our results are pretty substantial, and our finding that cannabis was not a causal factor in the crashes in which it was present is a fairly strong finding.’
(Evidence, p72"

Even this is an IMHO interpreted by results. (Albeit by a qualified dude)

IMHO (You got that?) I wouldn't risk it. Cannabis is still illicit and even if those drivers presented as little danger as a regular driver, they would still be arrested and charged for driving while under the influence.

I'd be interested to see how they worked out the 'sophisticated level of responsibility analysis'. but of course you've got too much to do.

[my porsche]

I wouldn't exactly say that anyone addicted to tobacco is a pussy, but I'd definitely say that addiction is nearly always the result of a bad decision. The only exceptions would be somewhere along the lines of a byproduct morphine addiction after a massive surgery.

I often feel that people who try to quit smoking cigarettes don't try hard enough, but then again I don't know what they're going through because I've never felt anything like what they feel. Still, it always seems they should try harder. Everyone I've ever met who's quit smoking has told me it's one of the best decisions they've ever made :)
way i see it is, you made a bad choice, you abused and got addicted to a substance, get over it, don't bitch about it, go to rehab and do your best to quit. son't start it if you can't finish it :p

except of course like you said morphine after surgery

[crisis]

When I was travelling in Asia I heard a term I had never heard before...

Quite a few of the The Germans, Australians, British, etc, that we met along the way told us the marijuana term "Canadian Style" in reference to a joint filled entirely with pot, rather than mixed with tobacco. They said it was almost universal that joints are rolled with tobacco, with the only prominent exception being Canada, hence the term.

I am not a smoker but I know plenty and have never heard of it being cut with tobacco. South Oz is a bit of a production centre for Australia’s MJ as well.


I've never heard of anyone locally getting addicted to marijuana, despite Vancouver being a global "cannabis Mecca".
As I said I know plenty of people who smoke or have. One of the guys in our band actually smoked everyday for years and years and shows no adverse affects. He also stopped effectively overnight. Most of the other people I know were causal smokers and therefore showed no signs of addiction.

[my porsche]

Watching too much television can also lead to long-term side effects mentally

Pardon me for straight talking, but anyone who believes that the personal risks imposed by Tobacco Meth or Alchohol use is as 'right up there' as using Marijuana, is 'right out there' imo. That view is propaganda, not fact
are you seriously trying to say that marijuana is worse than meth...

[IBrake4Rainbows]

If you'd actually read the post properly it says that those who think the effects of Marijuana are on par with Meth are wrong.

Major Self Ownage, myporsche.

[my porsche]

shit :p i feel like an ass...

wait a tick, he said that anyone who thinks that meth/alc/tobacco is "as up there as mj" meaning he thinks mj is worse...?

[Zondaboy1]

if you ask me..... pot should be the legal one but tobacco (cigs, not cigars or pipes) should be illegal

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Interesting theory...Until you take into account the rest of his posts indicating he believes marijuana isn't as bad.

points for trying. :p

[my porsche]

Interesting theory...Until you take into account the rest of his posts indicating he believes marijuana isn't as bad.

points for trying. :p
thanks, i think i just totally overthough it :p

[Zondaboy1]

i dont know, i think pot should be legal. i realy dont like cigs. i dont mind cigars or pipes just hate normal cigs. pot imo is no worse so it should be legal. and if anything should be allowed for medical use

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Marijuana is a mind-changing drug - to just allow it's use without proper studies, tests etc into it's effects is foolhardy and certainly not in the public interest.

I concur with a ban on Cig's/Cigars.

[my porsche]

cigars dont have as many chemicals in them (good ones at least) and smell MUCH better, i say they stay :p

[Rockefella]

if you ask me..... pot should be the legal one but tobacco (cigs, not cigars or pipes) should be illegal
Won't happen. They don't affect your state of mind, and they bring in A LOT of money.

[d-quik]

I disagree here - 'holding it in' would cause more damage than just in-out because you're allowing it time to be absorbed.i see your other points but this one...

yeah but "holding it in" has nothing to do with the plant itself

you can say that if you hold in oxygen long enough and it will turn into carbon dioxide and be BAD. you can say that with anything... it doesn't mean oxygen is bad though.

its not like the plant forces us to hold it in right?

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Again it's a behavioural thing - where Did i say i was referring solely to the plant?

If you read my post again I agree that most of the addiction related to Marijuana is behavioural. 'holding it in' is part of that behaviour.

It's Misinterpret day, i see.

[2ndclasscitizen]

I hate smoking in general. It's a stupid habit, and is completely disrespectful to those around you who don't smoke. Thank christ smoking in clubs in banned in the ACT from July 1, I'm sick of coming home from a night out smelling of cigarette smoke, even my hair smells like it.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Well thats what you get for passing out in the ashtray, fool. :p

[2ndclasscitizen]

Well thats what you get for passing out in the ashtray, fool. :p
I take offence to that sir! I've only ever passed out once, and that was after consuming a 6 pack of Empire and then a whole 750ml bottle of vodka...in 2hrs...

[Juggs]

smoking an ounce a week is a lot!! i have some friends that are pretty serious pot heads and they dont come close to an ounce a week...you'd just be retarded all day long if you smoked that much..thats not even fun.

[d-quik]

where Did i say i was referring solely to the plant?you meant it here... you replied with
I disagree herewhen I said that it had holding it in had nothing to do with the plant.

and (not that you said so, but...) i never said that YOU said you were referring to the plant. and even if you didn't i was just making a point, whats the harm in that? i think is it more of a paranoia day rather than a misinterpret day.

[Egg Nog]

The biggest moral problem I see to do with any substance, legal or not, is selling something that's addictive. Your customers can not help but physically desire more of your product. That's totally immoral. Actually, it's beyond that. It's heinous.

It totally makes sense to ban products with nicotine, exactly for this reason. So &*($@ing what if the government makes tax money off of it. I know for a fact that in Canada medical costs relating directly to cigarettes still outweigh the revenue made by the taxes, and we've got some of the highest tobacco taxes on the planet. Plus, that aside, the moral reasons are far and away enough to justify it.

[targa]

anyone ever been to an oxygen bar? I bet that would be awesome

[Egg Nog]

anyone ever been to an oxygen bar? I bet that would be awesome

We've evolved for millions of years in an atmosphere of about 21% oxygen. I'll bet if you 'felt' any difference at all it would be placebo. :)

[d-quik]

It totally makes sense to ban products with nicotine, exactly for this reason. So &*($@ing what if the government makes tax money off of it. I know for a fact that in Canada medical costs relating directly to cigarettes still outweigh the revenue made by the taxes, and we've got some of the highest tobacco taxes on the planet. Plus, that aside, the moral reasons are far and away enough to justify it.man when I was reading this, i was thinking "man, he is not very economical, people try the drugs in teh first place so it is just a problem of self control". but then you busted out the numbers and proved otherwise. but yeah, the taxes must be bothering

[targa]

We've evolved for millions of years in an atmosphere of about 21% oxygen. I'll bet if you 'felt' any difference at all it would be placebo. :)and at an oxygen bar you get pure oxygen, which is five times the content of our air....and....and....you can get different "flavors"....I would at least try it, it might be better than you think....if I ever get the chance, I'm gonna try it

[2ndclasscitizen]

Until some idiot lights up and loses their face

[shr0olvl]

and at an oxygen bar you get pure oxygen, which is five times the content of our air....and....and....you can get different "flavors"....I would at least try it, it might be better than you think....if I ever get the chance, I'm gonna try it

you'd be high on oxygen:cool: