3 ms·

"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 impossi

by 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.
  - gnaritas 18y ago
    No shit, but we're not scientists and this isn't that kind of discussion. I have no need to prove you wrong. You're spouting nonsense as if you haven't even done the most basic research on your own. You could have found plenty of scientific research that has been done with a trivial amount of Googling. I'm not going to do it for you; educate yourself on the issue because your fears about dosage are simply unfounded nonsense.
    - Rod 18y ago
      Dude, I talked about thresholds that would ensure that people would maintain their awareness within certain limits... you talked about overdose. We're not even discussing the same thing. The legal limit on alcohol is not to prevent people from dying, but to prevent them from driving when their reaction-time and situational awareness are reduced. Alcohol is easy to control because they can make you blow those alcohol-meters. How do you measure how "high" someone is? It's not so easy. Scientific research on this topic does not seem mature enough. It's an ongoing effort. But it's better than nothing. To cut a long story short: just because something as dangerous as alcohol is freely available and culturally acceptable, I think we should be careful about legalizing drugs. I have smoked pot, my friends have smoked pot. From my experience, it's a lot less dangerous than alcohol. Scientific seems to suggest that pot is not particularly dangerous (unless you smoke an entire field). I don't think we disagree on much. The difference is that I believe that one should be exhaustive when analyzing this issue. All possibilities should be studied. Information should be provided in an unbiased manner. And, ultimately, people should be able to decide whether to consume or not without any baby-sitting from the government.
      - gnaritas 18y ago
        And my point is people have already decided; massive amounts of people already smoke it regularly. This is no need for any additional study, we know its effects, it's America's big dirty secret that a large minority of the population smokes all the time. You're talking like there's some big bad unknown danger lurking around the corner and we should tread carefully. That's just bogus, pot isn't some unknown what if, it's something massive amounts of people do all the time already. It's a joke that it isn't already legal. It's a joke to suggest that it's even dangerous, it's not, and everyone knows it. The last bit of resistance is people like you balking about moving too fast and not being careful enough or wanting to place limits and all that as if we aren't 30 years past that kind of timidness. People who are scared of pot are a joke.
ojbyrne 18y ago
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/mj_overdose.htm http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/mj_overdose.htm says LD50 is 1/3 your body weight.
- gnaritas 18y ago
  1/3 your body weight of pure THC, that's 1500 pounds of pot.

by Rod 18y ago

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.
- gnaritas 18y ago
  No shit, but we're not scientists and this isn't that kind of discussion. I have no need to prove you wrong. You're spouting nonsense as if you haven't even done the most basic research on your own. You could have found plenty of scientific research that has been done with a trivial amount of Googling. I'm not going to do it for you; educate yourself on the issue because your fears about dosage are simply unfounded nonsense.
  - Rod 18y ago
    Dude, I talked about thresholds that would ensure that people would maintain their awareness within certain limits... you talked about overdose. We're not even discussing the same thing. The legal limit on alcohol is not to prevent people from dying, but to prevent them from driving when their reaction-time and situational awareness are reduced. Alcohol is easy to control because they can make you blow those alcohol-meters. How do you measure how "high" someone is? It's not so easy. Scientific research on this topic does not seem mature enough. It's an ongoing effort. But it's better than nothing. To cut a long story short: just because something as dangerous as alcohol is freely available and culturally acceptable, I think we should be careful about legalizing drugs. I have smoked pot, my friends have smoked pot. From my experience, it's a lot less dangerous than alcohol. Scientific seems to suggest that pot is not particularly dangerous (unless you smoke an entire field). I don't think we disagree on much. The difference is that I believe that one should be exhaustive when analyzing this issue. All possibilities should be studied. Information should be provided in an unbiased manner. And, ultimately, people should be able to decide whether to consume or not without any baby-sitting from the government.
    - gnaritas 18y ago
      And my point is people have already decided; massive amounts of people already smoke it regularly. This is no need for any additional study, we know its effects, it's America's big dirty secret that a large minority of the population smokes all the time. You're talking like there's some big bad unknown danger lurking around the corner and we should tread carefully. That's just bogus, pot isn't some unknown what if, it's something massive amounts of people do all the time already. It's a joke that it isn't already legal. It's a joke to suggest that it's even dangerous, it's not, and everyone knows it. The last bit of resistance is people like you balking about moving too fast and not being careful enough or wanting to place limits and all that as if we aren't 30 years past that kind of timidness. People who are scared of pot are a joke.

ojbyrne 18y ago

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/mj_overdose.htm http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/mj_overdose.htm says LD50 is 1/3 your body weight.

gnaritas 18y ago
1/3 your body weight of pure THC, that's 1500 pounds of pot.