3 ms·

Of course sugar is a mind-altering substance. It can even be lethal. Same for salt. Anything can be a poison if consumed in high enough doses. Too much caffeine

by Rod 18y ago

Of course sugar is a mind-altering substance. It can even be lethal. Same for salt. Anything can be a poison if consumed in high enough doses. Too much caffeine and one will have a heart-attack (this upper bound is known). I couldn't disagree more that dose is NOT relevant. Dose is EVERYTHING. Water is vital for humans to survive, but if you drink too much water, you will get high. Should we ban water drinking? Of course not, we should inform people how much they should drink each day. It's a no-brainer because thirsty people will drink water when they feel like. Dude, I am ALL for legalization of marijuana (I might have given the impression that I am against it for some reason). I know there will be people who will use emotional and ignorant arguments against it and, hence, I believe that imposing certain bounds on consumption could be a good idea because it would defeat those weak arguments against legalization. What I would like to see is unbiased, reliable scientific evidence. I would like to know how much an adult should be able to consume. Yeah, too much pot and one falls asleep (I have smoked, so I know it), but if you fall asleep while driving then you might be endangering others. In my humble opinion, marijuana SHOULD be legal, people should be informed about what would be a responsible daily consumption, and politics, religion, emotion should be left out of it.

gnaritas 18y ago
I'm sorry, but your search for the recommended maximum daily allowance of pot just seems stupid. We don't restrict maximum daily allowance of any other recreationally used substance so you're trying to hold pot to a higher standard than anything else, which is just ridiculous. You still don't seem to grasp that it's none of yours or anyone else's business how much one consumes as long as no one is harmed. If you harm someone while high, the fact that you're high really isn't relevant either, you can be punished by existing law for harming someone. Murder is murder, it doesn't matter if you did it while high, or drunk, or on PCP, the crime was still the murder, not the state of mind that led you there. Dose is only relevant if the maximum dose is easily reachable. There is no practical maximum to smoking pot, you'd have to smoke literally a truck bed full to even get close to a dangerous level which is physically impossible. Thus, as I said earlier, dose is not relevant.
- Rod 18y ago
  "There is no practical maximum to smoking pot, you'd have to smoke literally a truck bed full to even get close to a dangerous level which is physically impossible. Thus, as I said earlier, dose is not relevant." Is that based on your personal experience, your (unsubstantiated) belief, or any scientific data? This is an honest question. Though I have smoked pot, I never smoked more than one joint per night. Sure it's none of my business how much other people consume just as long as no one gets harmed. But you're assuming that people are responsible and most people aren't. Murder is murder, but there are accidents that could be avoided if people were not mind-altered. And I am referring to alcohol, not pot. I don't think it would be too ridiculous to hold pot to a higher standard than alcohol, for instance. Solely for practical reasons. Alcohol is legal. Pot is not. If imposing caps on consumption would reduce the resistance to the legalization of pot, then it COULD be worth considering. This is speculation. I am not saying it would be worth it, I am just saying one should not discard any possibilities without a more in-depth analysis.
  - gnaritas 18y ago
    Here, http://lmgtfy.com?q=marijuana%20overdose http://lmgtfy.com?q=marijuana%20overdose since it's pretty widely known dose just isn't an issue with mj.
    - Rod 18y ago
      Please spare me of your pedantism. I can google myself, thank you. Please note that: 1) "Widely know" is not scientific at all. Opinions of laymen count for nothing. The truth is found through experimentation and observation, not by consensus. Show me scientific papers, please. 2) Overdose is not the problem. The problem is that people react differently to the same dose. Thus the need to come up with a threshold. Even if this threshold were not enforced, it could serve as a guideline. 3) If you have indeed smoked a truckload of pot and felt OK enough to drive (for instance), all you have proved is that the truckload of pot had little influence on your brain on that day. You can't generalize to the rest of the population. You seem to be like the Inquisition: you're not even willing to consider any idea which goes against your dogma. Prove me wrong.

by Rod 18y ago

gnaritas 18y ago

I'm sorry, but your search for the recommended maximum daily allowance of pot just seems stupid. We don't restrict maximum daily allowance of any other recreationally used substance so you're trying to hold pot to a higher standard than anything else, which is just ridiculous. You still don't seem to grasp that it's none of yours or anyone else's business how much one consumes as long as no one is harmed. If you harm someone while high, the fact that you're high really isn't relevant either, you can be punished by existing law for harming someone. Murder is murder, it doesn't matter if you did it while high, or drunk, or on PCP, the crime was still the murder, not the state of mind that led you there. Dose is only relevant if the maximum dose is easily reachable. There is no practical maximum to smoking pot, you'd have to smoke literally a truck bed full to even get close to a dangerous level which is physically impossible. Thus, as I said earlier, dose is not relevant.

Rod 18y ago
"There is no practical maximum to smoking pot, you'd have to smoke literally a truck bed full to even get close to a dangerous level which is physically impossible. Thus, as I said earlier, dose is not relevant." Is that based on your personal experience, your (unsubstantiated) belief, or any scientific data? This is an honest question. Though I have smoked pot, I never smoked more than one joint per night. Sure it's none of my business how much other people consume just as long as no one gets harmed. But you're assuming that people are responsible and most people aren't. Murder is murder, but there are accidents that could be avoided if people were not mind-altered. And I am referring to alcohol, not pot. I don't think it would be too ridiculous to hold pot to a higher standard than alcohol, for instance. Solely for practical reasons. Alcohol is legal. Pot is not. If imposing caps on consumption would reduce the resistance to the legalization of pot, then it COULD be worth considering. This is speculation. I am not saying it would be worth it, I am just saying one should not discard any possibilities without a more in-depth analysis.
- gnaritas 18y ago
  Here, http://lmgtfy.com?q=marijuana%20overdose http://lmgtfy.com?q=marijuana%20overdose since it's pretty widely known dose just isn't an issue with mj.
  - Rod 18y ago
    Please spare me of your pedantism. I can google myself, thank you. Please note that: 1) "Widely know" is not scientific at all. Opinions of laymen count for nothing. The truth is found through experimentation and observation, not by consensus. Show me scientific papers, please. 2) Overdose is not the problem. The problem is that people react differently to the same dose. Thus the need to come up with a threshold. Even if this threshold were not enforced, it could serve as a guideline. 3) If you have indeed smoked a truckload of pot and felt OK enough to drive (for instance), all you have proved is that the truckload of pot had little influence on your brain on that day. You can't generalize to the rest of the population. You seem to be like the Inquisition: you're not even willing to consider any idea which goes against your dogma. Prove me wrong.