Page 3 of 3
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 5:27 pm
by Skullkracker
I like windmills...
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 5:34 pm
by Femto
LordMune wrote:Femto, I think you will find that most european users on this forum won't agree with you- Europe doesn't have a counterpart to the American "weed culture".
You might need to get out more buddy.
I've been to quite a few places in Europe and I've met quite a few Europeans here as well, it's not as dissimilar as you think.
US > Europe.
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 5:37 pm
by LordMune
Here I'll have to bring up the social circles thing in my defence.

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 5:39 pm
by Skullkracker
Femto wrote:US > Europe.
anyhow, come visit us sometime
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 5:59 pm
by Libaax
Femto wrote:Skullkracker wrote:alcoholists
roffles
I don't care or know enough about economics to waste my time arguing about it.
Alcohol is more damaging than weed in short term, they are about even in the long run.
Period.
Alcohol kills alot more than most drugs,atleast thats what they told us in school.
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:08 pm
by Skullkracker
that's still not a reason for legalizing drugs, and I've never said it wasn't bad...it is
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:20 pm
by Libaax
Hey i didnt say that im just saying alcohol kills more.
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:24 pm
by Tempest
Libaax wrote:Hey i didnt say that im just saying alcohol kills more.
It depends on what you consider a death due to achohal.
Man A drinks enough to get plastered and drive his car off a bridge.
Man B drinks enough to die from alchohal poisoning.
In only one of these scenerios is achohal what actually KILLS these men, but do both count towards alchohal deaths? If that's the case should every person who dies while high on drugs get counted along with everyone who has ever ODed?
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:32 pm
by Libaax
In both A and B i think it counts as alcohol deaths.
The drug cases are alittle more difficult but lets say someone who is hign on some drug kills a person just cause the drugist coulndt think straight. That should count as drug death.
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:43 pm
by Skullkracker
Libaax wrote:Alcohol kills alot more than most drugs,atleast thats what they told us in school.
let's review this statement
the number of people taking alcohol is much more than the number of people using drugs..at least I do think so
now: the ratio of drug users who die becouse of drugs I believe is more than the ratio of alcohol users diing, even if we count alcohol related accidents
I would like to see some statistics, but I don't know where to look
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:48 pm
by Libaax
Well thats a given cause there hundreds of millions who drink alcohol wisely while that cant be said for drug users.
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:55 pm
by Wandering_Mystic
Yes, statistics would be pretty helpful to your statement, otherwise I would have to categorize it as mere opinion. But if you're including weed in the drug category, and I think you are, then I would have to doubt such a statement on face value. I can very easily imagine that so many people have and do smoke weed without any serious incident, that I really would have to see some hard evidence to believe a drug use related death ratio being higher. The deaths due to drugs (or the ODs, at least) also depend a bit on what drug is used, so it might not be a very scientific research if all drugs were lumped into one category against what is pretty much another drug: alcohol
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:59 pm
by Libaax
Well i dont know where to get stats. But a year or two ago we watched an information film that said that Alcohol is the drug that kills most people in the world. Thats what im basing my statements on.
If we cant trust school info then what can you trust.
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 7:00 pm
by Skullkracker
I think that most people think here duggest that there's no need for legalization, ther's need for ban instead

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 7:03 pm
by Killfile
All of these ratios and numbers you're spitting out are flawed though - because the current illegalization of "recreational drugs" (excluding caffine, nicotine, and alcohol) in the United States means that the drug using population is self selecting for dangerous and perhaps irresponsible behavior.
In other words - drug users are allready dumb enough to risk doing something that can get them thrown in jail for a long time just to feel good. Drugs didn't make them that way, but there are marked differences in the populations before chemical alterations even enter the picture.
I'm not suggesting that we start legalizing drugs like LSD and crack, though in any truely free country one would think that I would have the right to take whatever drugs I saw fit (that's what the libritarians think).
What I am suggesting is that there exists no evidence that alcohol is any less dangerous than pot in the long or short term (though the smoking of pot, as opposed to other safer forms of the drug can cause lung cancer). Alcohol remains legal, yet pot is illegal. This is illogical.
More to the point - this illogical legal stucuture deprives Americans of potentially life saving treatments.
As to the driving question - drunk drivers are more likely to speed, more likely to react slowly or over-compensate for a world that seems to be moving too fast for them.
Stoned drivers are more likely to not drive - and if they do drive are more likely to drive slowly and with intense concentration. Pot does not have the same "I'm invincible" affect on the human brain that alchohol has - indeed there are studies that have shown that many people drive BETTER when (slightly) stoned*.
*No, I don't know where you can find those on line.
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 7:07 pm
by Skullkracker
what do you mean by potentially life saving treatment?
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:44 pm
by Killfile
The best example is chemotherapy. Larger doses of drugs are, almost without exception, better for killing cancers. Unfortunately, most chemo-therapeutic drugs have nasty side effects.
They make patients violently ill
They suppress appetite
They can induce huge mood swings
Marijuana has been shown as an extremely powerful antidote to many of these symptoms. Cancer patients who take marijuana before treatment often feel no nausea whatsoever. They do not experience a decrease in appetite and mood swings are dampened by the cannabis.
Given that those side effects are often the major limiting factor in the size and concentration of doses that a given patient can take - marijuana can dramatically improve the effectiveness of cancer treatments -- and that cna save lives.
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:55 am
by Buzkashi
Meh, I would trust a high driver over a drunk driver any day. Not just because boose messes up your motor skills more. But its because if they get pulled over its easier to get caught. But yea... I would rather them loosen up the weed rules over time rather than just making it legal. If it was just sudden the number of crazy potheads would pop up like boners in a titty bar.
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:27 am
by Tempest
UNLESS your high driver gets paranoid instead of relaxed. The one time I have smoked the wacky tabaccy, two of my friends and I got mellow, but our other buddy turns out to be a very paranoid high person, he would not shut the fuck up. We went to get Taco Bell and he was freaking out.
Solution: Drive yourself OR Sit your ass down until you are sober.
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:04 am
by Buzkashi
Tempest wrote: wacky tabaccy
LOL
Of course I'll drive if im able. I trust myself.