4 ms·

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

by 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.
- Rod 18y ago
  Some decades ago they also said cigarettes were not dangerous. Purifying radium was not dangerous, either. Then, decades later people started dying of cancer. They say cell phones are not dangerous, though a friend of mine who did a PhD in computational bioelectromagnetics is not so sure. I am concerned about the ethical aspect of it. If I were a scientist who had spent 30 years researching the effects of marijuana, I would say that: "scientific evidence seems to suggest that marijuana is not dangerous, but people should take into account that future research could lead to different conclusions". People should decide, and have already decided. There's a huge market out there and it's a scandal that marijuana has not been legalized yet. Unless you are absolutely sure there's no danger whatsoever, you have no right to say that any fear is a joke. Your certainty stems from your ignorance, and this is not supposed to be offending. I think pot should have been legalized decades ago, and we're not moving fast... we're moving slow. Legalize it ASAP. Period. But do not advertise that there are no dangers, because you don't know. Moreover, the way you consume pot might be the danger, not the pot itself. I mean the paper used to roll the joint for instant. The hot air is known to increase the chances of throat cancer. Lip cancer is a problem. Using a water pipe should be safer. I know I know nothing, but for a layman you seem awfully certain.
  - gnaritas 18y ago
    > Unless you are sure there's no danger whatsoever That's absurd. Nothing in this life is perfectly safe. Safety has absolutely nothing to do with whether something is legal or not. Sky diving is dangerous but legal. Riding bulls is dangerous but legal. What I'm asserting is that pot is known to be safe enough that it should be my choice whether I do it or not. We're decades beyond the irrational fears you're peddling. Our president has smoked pot for Christ's sake, you can't get much more mainstream than that.
    - Rod 18y ago
      I know this might seem paranoid, but my main concern is the lack of ethics in advertising something as "perfectly safe", when it might not be... well... "perfectly safe". On the other hand, one could argue that nothing is indeed perfectly safe. If I were a medical doctor in the 1940s and advertised that research suggested that cigarettes were safe... as soon as evidence started proving otherwise decades later, I would have felt horribly guilty and ashamed. Medicine is not yet an entirely exact science. There are many things we don't know. I say: inform people of the risks, and let them decide freely. But just don't advertise something as "perfectly safe" when it's just "safe enough" because it sounds slightly dishonest.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]

by Rod 18y ago

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.

Rod 18y ago
Some decades ago they also said cigarettes were not dangerous. Purifying radium was not dangerous, either. Then, decades later people started dying of cancer. They say cell phones are not dangerous, though a friend of mine who did a PhD in computational bioelectromagnetics is not so sure. I am concerned about the ethical aspect of it. If I were a scientist who had spent 30 years researching the effects of marijuana, I would say that: "scientific evidence seems to suggest that marijuana is not dangerous, but people should take into account that future research could lead to different conclusions". People should decide, and have already decided. There's a huge market out there and it's a scandal that marijuana has not been legalized yet. Unless you are absolutely sure there's no danger whatsoever, you have no right to say that any fear is a joke. Your certainty stems from your ignorance, and this is not supposed to be offending. I think pot should have been legalized decades ago, and we're not moving fast... we're moving slow. Legalize it ASAP. Period. But do not advertise that there are no dangers, because you don't know. Moreover, the way you consume pot might be the danger, not the pot itself. I mean the paper used to roll the joint for instant. The hot air is known to increase the chances of throat cancer. Lip cancer is a problem. Using a water pipe should be safer. I know I know nothing, but for a layman you seem awfully certain.
- gnaritas 18y ago
  > Unless you are sure there's no danger whatsoever That's absurd. Nothing in this life is perfectly safe. Safety has absolutely nothing to do with whether something is legal or not. Sky diving is dangerous but legal. Riding bulls is dangerous but legal. What I'm asserting is that pot is known to be safe enough that it should be my choice whether I do it or not. We're decades beyond the irrational fears you're peddling. Our president has smoked pot for Christ's sake, you can't get much more mainstream than that.
  - Rod 18y ago
    I know this might seem paranoid, but my main concern is the lack of ethics in advertising something as "perfectly safe", when it might not be... well... "perfectly safe". On the other hand, one could argue that nothing is indeed perfectly safe. If I were a medical doctor in the 1940s and advertised that research suggested that cigarettes were safe... as soon as evidence started proving otherwise decades later, I would have felt horribly guilty and ashamed. Medicine is not yet an entirely exact science. There are many things we don't know. I say: inform people of the risks, and let them decide freely. But just don't advertise something as "perfectly safe" when it's just "safe enough" because it sounds slightly dishonest.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]