<!--QuoteBegin-Spacer+Mar 2 2005, 11:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spacer @ Mar 2 2005, 11:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[...]I think you'd have to be pretty stupid to believe it doesn't do anything at all[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> My point exactly.
I know the chemical makeup of ethanol or ethylalcohol, the kind that's in beer or schnapps or whatever. It's ridiculously simple. C2 H4 O. I could even draw an ethanol molecule for you if you want to (but don't feel like going through the trouble unless I'm sure you'll appreciate the gesture. If you want your very personal ethanol molecule, just say the word). The effects are well known and documented.
Marijuana, on the other hand, has roughly four hundred different substances in it. I can't even name 1/10 of those. My point is that the substance is so immensely complex that it is still not fully understood, and it is not yet possible to ascertain the exact consequences of consumption.
The example that you mention is cars. Cars are far better understood than marijuana, probably largely owing to the fact that mankind designed them from the ground up. We don't have the blueprints for marijuana. Thanks to crash testing, we also understand the adverse effects of car collisions very well. So well, in fact, that we design cars to protect the occupants as much as possible in the event of a collision.
I merely wish to dispel the notion of marijuana being a harmless drug, when that is very much in question. Treating something that is potentially harmful as harmless is very dangerous.
I currently refuse to take a stance in the debate on the legality of marijuana, because I can't make up my mind. Spacer, you seem to deduct from my previous post that I wish for marijuana to remain illegal. I refer specifically to this sentence:<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Are you saying we should ban cars too, because people can drive them very fast into other people?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->I took great care NOT to take a stance in the legality debate. Please direct me to the parts of my previous post in which it appears as though I support or oppose the legality of marijuana, and I shall edit that post accordingly. Thank you.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 1 2005, 02:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 1 2005, 02:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It may have that effect on you. I don't like to ingest caffeine (no cola or coffee for me, although I eat moderate amounts of chocolate) because it makes me hyper (I'm naturally pretty energetic, so the upper effect is too much for me; other people are not naturally energetic, so they want the upper effect in order to make them more hyper). I have no lingering after effects because of caffeine. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Can you be sure of that? I doubt that you can tell me with 100% certainty. Besides, how much have you had? Of course you may not have <i>noticable</i> after-effects in small doses, but once you're drinking like four or more cups of coffee in the morning before you can even function properly, I think it's pretty obvious. Caffeine is kind of like heroin, the way it manipulates the brain.
Your "upper" effect from chocolate is most likely from the sugar. The caffeine level in milk chocolate is negligible.
If you want more energy, you should be eating fruit, anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->no government can tell me whether I am allowed to get caffeine or alcohol. Its my free choice. Everyone has the right for self-responsibility (if reached a certain age of course).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sure, but they can tell you that you can't have pot, cocaine, heroin, shrooms, E, speed, opium, a certain konnyaku product, nicotine (until you're 18), alcohol (until you're 18, 21 in the US), porn (until you're 18) or so many other things that they've restricted, right?
They sure as hell can. You may consider it morally wrong, but they still can tell you that you're not allowed to have something.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think hashish is faaaar more dangerous than coffee and or alcohol. Alcohol has a buit-in brake for overuse (like drink too much of it you wake up next day with a headache - This may give you a hint for not overusing it)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ... So does hasish and caffeine. Also, getting a hangover THE NEXT DAY is hardly a brake, more like a kick in the **** after you've just been stabbed. There are even people who don't <i>get</i> hangovers.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->hashish may be physically less damaging than alcohol (I do not know exactly) but totally slows people mentally. A few people I have seen that smoke hashish are more likely to hang around and "do things later"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <b>Is</b> less damaging than alcohol. THC has <i>no long-term mental effects</i>. There are, however, long-term mental effects from alcohol. It <b>eats away</b> at your brain.
Oh, and lolfighter: Anecdotal evidence is still evidence. People have been smoking marijuana for years and they haven't had any ill-effects that weren't caused from mental instability in the first place, other than the smoke and tar.
Also, I would like to point out that most of the musicians in the 60s who were on alcohol and cocaine are dead now (except Bowie and Mick Jagger). Most of the <i>authors</i>, who were on marijuana and LSD, are still alive, such as Robert Anton Wilson.
I'm not trying to say that marijuana is harmless. <b>Nothing is harmless.</b> The harmful part about marijuana is the smoke and tar, but marijuana doesn't even have to be smoked. (If you don't smoke it, the harmful part is carcinogens, but most of them can be removed. THC is fat soluble and the carcinogens are water soluble.) But it's certainly not as harmful as alcohol, caffeine or even aspirin (which contains a concentration of caffeine as well as other drugs).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->THC has no long-term mental effects<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I not feel that this is actually correct
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, I would like to point out that most of the musicians in the 60s who were on alcohol and cocaine are dead now (except Bowie and Mick Jagger). Most of the authors, who were on marijuana and LSD, are still alive, such as Robert Anton Wilson. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have heard that people who started with "soft" drugs like hashish are likely to get "hard" stuff later
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They sure as hell can. You may consider it morally wrong, but they still can tell you that you're not allowed to have something. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I still have the freedom to ignore any law that I feel is not fair/correct. No government has the moral authority to take away alcohol or coffee. I consider it a natural right to choose whether I want to drink alcohol/coffee (of course I think it makes sense to restrict alcohol while driving). "Democracies" are run by leaders who are elected by the people and act in their favor. If now someone says that it's the will of the people to remove alcohol/caffeine there should be hopefully a few rocks thrown at government buildings
btw in Germany kids that have the age of 16 are allowed to drink "low-alcohol" things like beer. When reaching the age of 18 anything is free.
drugs are for losers. losers deserved to be arrested and given a healthy dose of police brutality. drug suppliers need to have their countries firebombed into ashes and their field plantations doused with agent orange.
<!--QuoteBegin-kill4thrills+Mar 2 2005, 12:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kill4thrills @ Mar 2 2005, 12:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> drugs are for losers. losers deserved to be arrested and given a healthy dose of police brutality. drug suppliers need to have their countries firebombed into ashes and their field plantations doused with agent orange.
nuff said <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I completely agree. We need to bomb America in order to get rid of the evil crystal meth suppliers and the evil marijuana suppliers.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 2 2005, 11:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 2 2005, 11:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-kill4thrills+Mar 2 2005, 12:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kill4thrills @ Mar 2 2005, 12:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> drugs are for losers. losers deserved to be arrested and given a healthy dose of police brutality. drug suppliers need to have their countries firebombed into ashes and their field plantations doused with agent orange.
nuff said <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I completely agree. We need to bomb America in order to get rid of the evil crystal meth suppliers and the evil marijuana suppliers. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> i agree. bomb down their grow-op houses and methlabs. preferably with the druggies still inside. their charred remains will be a grim reminder to all the losers out there who want to grow/make drugs
<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Mar 2 2005, 09:13 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Mar 2 2005, 09:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Marijuana, on the other hand, has roughly four hundred different substances in it. I can't even name 1/10 of those. My point is that the substance is so immensely complex that it is still not fully understood, and it is not yet possible to ascertain the exact consequences of consumption. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Carrots have roughly four hundred different substances in them because, just like Marijuana, IT'S A PLANT! Marijuana is just as complex as carrots are, but no one wants to ban carrots because they aren't fully understood.
UC-San Diego's School of Medicine did a study, determining that marijuana use had minimal long term effects on brain function: <a href='http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/pot/a/blucsd030628.htm' target='_blank'>http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/pot/a/blucsd030628.htm</a>
One marijuana cigarette is worse for you than one tobacco cigarette. However, since you don't (and can't, really) use marijuana even close to as much as you use regular cigarettes, the effect is minimal. If you don't smoke marijuana, then you don't even have these problems.
Marijuana may stop or slow the onset of Alzheimer's: <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4286435.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4286435.stm</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Netherlands' drug policy is the most nonpunitive in Europe. For more than twenty years, Dutch citizens over age eighteen have been permitted to buy and use cannabis (marijuana and hashish) in government-regulated coffee shops. This policy has not resulted in dramatically escalating cannabis use. For most age groups, rates of marijuana use in the Netherlands are similar to those in the United States. However, <b>for young adolescents, rates of marijuana use are lower in the Netherlands than in the United States</b>. The Dutch people overwhelmingly approve of current cannabis policy which seeks to normalize rather than dramatize cannabis use. The Dutch government occasionally revises existing policy, but it remains committed to decriminalization.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Source:http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/ I found this in dozens of places. Americans use marijuana more often than the Dutch do, even though it is legal there and illegal here. Legalizing marijuana may actually <i>reduce</i> the rate of usage.
<!--QuoteBegin-kill4thrills+Mar 2 2005, 01:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kill4thrills @ Mar 2 2005, 01:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 2 2005, 11:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 2 2005, 11:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-kill4thrills+Mar 2 2005, 12:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kill4thrills @ Mar 2 2005, 12:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> drugs are for losers. losers deserved to be arrested and given a healthy dose of police brutality. drug suppliers need to have their countries firebombed into ashes and their field plantations doused with agent orange.
nuff said <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I completely agree. We need to bomb America in order to get rid of the evil crystal meth suppliers and the evil marijuana suppliers. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> i agree. bomb down their grow-op houses and methlabs. preferably with the druggies still inside. their charred remains will be a grim reminder to all the losers out there who want to grow/make drugs <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It's interesting that a user named kill4thrills would post something like this.
Do you have any justification for this, or should they be bombed because people who use/make drugs are losers?
cause they are parasites. they only contribute crime and are otherwise worthless to society. such people need to be eradicated. a much tougher stance on drugs is needed in the western world cause they consume most of the world's supply of drugs (as well as pretty much everything else). in places like china and vietnam, posession of narcotics is a executable offense. while i don't agree with all of their policies. ridding society of parasites gets a thumbs up from me.
Lolfighter: You gave the impression that it was more dangerous than alcohol because some people think it's completely harmless, thus implying that *something should be done*. I guess I interpreted it wrong, so no problem. However yeah, as theclam pointed out, plants are very complex.
kill4thrills: I smoke marijuana. BOMB ME. DEAR GOD.
<!--QuoteBegin-kill4thrills+Mar 2 2005, 02:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kill4thrills @ Mar 2 2005, 02:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> cause they are parasites. they only contribute crime and are otherwise worthless to society. such people need to be eradicated. a much tougher stance on drugs is needed in the western world cause they consume most of the world's supply of drugs (as well as pretty much everything else). in places like china and vietnam, posession of narcotics is a executable offense. while i don't agree with all of their policies. ridding society of parasites gets a thumbs up from me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> They're criminals because drugs are illegal, not because they commit violent crimes. Many drug users and producers don't commit any crimes other than producing and possessing drugs. I would guess that there isn't any direct correlation between drug use and non-drug crimes. I think that there is a correlation between poverty and crime, and drug use and poverty, which is why you think that.
China and Vietnam are crappy places to live and their drug policy is harsh. The Netherlands and similiar countries are nice places to live and their drug policy is lenient. Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, but it is interesting to think about.
If your policy is adopted, then we should get rid of SUV drivers. They use valuable oil, valuable car parts and cause accidents. They are parasites on society, too. We should bomb people who practice copyright infringement, because they are parasites leeching off the hard work of the people who make creative works. We should kill the unemployed, the homeless, and people on welfare, because they take away more from society than they contribute. Thus, they are parasites.
<!--QuoteBegin-Spacer+Mar 2 2005, 08:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spacer @ Mar 2 2005, 08:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Lolfighter: You gave the impression that it was more dangerous than alcohol because some people think it's completely harmless, thus implying that *something should be done*. I guess I interpreted it wrong, so no problem. However yeah, as theclam pointed out, plants are very complex.
kill4thrills: I smoke marijuana. BOMB ME. DEAR GOD. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I DO believe it is more dangerous. Maybe not if used responsibly. But I see three abusers for every responsible user, while the people who will occasionally drink alcohol far far outnumber the alcoholics. I did not wish to imply that something must be done, though. I still believe tobacco to be worse than those two, but the tobacco smokers pay lots of taxes, taxes that would have to come out of my money otherwise. Maybe that's what we need: Legal marijuana with a hefty tax slapped on it. Maybe.
lol netherlands is a crappy place to live. you're surrounded by homosexual druggies and prostitutes and people who like to have sex with farm animals and reptiles.
pot impairment is a serious problem. being high and behind the wheel is just as bad as being drunk. cops need some sort of breathalizer for pot.
and spacer: if the legal system allows me to bomb you to a corpse you can bet i will
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->lol netherlands is a crappy place to live. you're surrounded by homosexual druggies and prostitutes and people who like to have sex with farm animals and reptiles. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ...I don't think you are informed about life in the Netherlands. If they're just like that, then we're all racist cowboys with half a dozen guns who spend two hours in church every day instituting theocracy. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->pot impairment is a serious problem. being high and behind the wheel is just as bad as being drunk. cops need some sort of breathalizer for pot.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, it's not as bad as being drunk. People high on pot drive more defensively, whereas people drunk on alcohol drive more aggressively and recklessly. You still drive much better if you're sober, but it's not as bad as drunk driving. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and spacer: if the legal system allows me to bomb you to a corpse you can bet i will<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're a wonderful person.
<!--QuoteBegin-kill4thrills+Mar 2 2005, 02:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kill4thrills @ Mar 2 2005, 02:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> lol netherlands is a crappy place to live. you're surrounded by homosexual druggies and prostitutes and people who like to have sex with farm animals and reptiles.
pot impairment is a serious problem. being high and behind the wheel is just as bad as being drunk. cops need some sort of breathalizer for pot.
and spacer: if the legal system allows me to bomb you to a corpse you can bet i will <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I DUB THEE, AVENGERX THE SECOND!
<!--QuoteBegin-kittycat+Mar 2 2005, 10:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kittycat @ Mar 2 2005, 10:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I not feel that this is actually correct <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Why not? Can you prove it?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have heard that people who started with "soft" drugs like hashish are likely to get "hard" stuff later<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Right, and people who play video games are likely to go to school with a twelve-gauge shotgun and start blasting the students. People who move on to much more dangerous drugs usually have some sort of mental instability that was triggered by the drug, it's not the drug itself that's to blame. (Just like the people who kill after playing video games.) What you've heard is a little thing called propaganda. Those who don't move on to harder drugs because of a mental instability have <b>learned</b> about the drug and are smart enough to use it in moderation and do not let it control their lives.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I still have the freedom to ignore any law that I feel is not fair/correct. No government has the moral authority to take away alcohol or coffee. I consider it a natural right to choose whether I want to drink alcohol/coffee (of course I think it makes sense to restrict alcohol while driving). "Democracies" are run by leaders who are elected by the people and act in their favor. If now someone says that it's the will of the people to remove alcohol/caffeine there should be hopefully a few rocks thrown at government buildings<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you think so, then why would you let it being illegal stop you?
You don't have the actual <i>freedom</i>, the physical freedom to ignore laws. But you have the moral freedom. So don't complain if you get arrested for it.
People who want to smoke pot are obviously still smoking pot. Oh, and it wasn't the will of the majority to make pot illegal.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->drugs are for losers. losers deserved to be arrested and given a healthy dose of police brutality.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Have you ever had caffeine, alcohol or any prescription drugs? Any medicines at all? Chocolate? All of these contain drugs and yes, they effect you in similar or the same ways that the illegal ones do. I doubt that they can fit an entire country in prison. Plus, there'd be nobody to guard it.
Not all drug users are "hopeless junkies who use it as an escape." In fact, I've only ever met one drug user like that. The rest all use drugs because they enjoy the effects. They don't use it every day, they don't abuse it. It's just a nice way to relax and feel good, especially with some friends.
Are you a social drinker? Do <i>you</i> drink coffee in the morning? Do you take any form of painkiller when you have a headache? If you answered yes to any of these, you're no worse than they are.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->cause they are parasites. they only contribute crime and are otherwise worthless to society.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You go ahead and keep telling yourself that. You're my favourite kind of hypocrite, the kind that I can mock with my friends.
I'd like to give you guys some insight on my morals... I believe that if something is not theft, it should not be illegal. Most crimes basically boil down to theft: Homicide is theft. Rape is theft. Breach of contract is theft. Theft is theft. (Obviously.) Drug use is not theft. Prostitution is not theft. (Slavery is, so forcing someone to be a prostitute is theft. But the theft of freedom is the crime, not the actual prostitution.)
Just two points to get across over here, but first I'll start with: I'm all for drugs. Everyone can do whatever they want - as long as it doesn't directly interfere with my life. That is, drug bans should be legalized, sold in packages with labels (just like legal drugs now), and you should need to register to use 'harder' ones. Aside from that, let me break out a few experiences for you:
I used to drink between 0 (heh) and 6 cans (woot, video games) of caffinated soda per day (generally Mountain Dew or something), not because it made me wake up or jumpy (and in fact, I don't believe I've ever been 'hyper' in my life, aside from specifc, non-drug related incidents [in which I still wasn't outwardly hyper] <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->). I drank it based on taste (as I still occasionally will, but iced tea tastes so much better...as does milk and apple juice, but a half gallon of apple juice is a lot on your kidney for a few sequential days). I've consumed upwards of 4 cans of beer within an hour's time with the largest effect being slightly dizzy (...and I think beer tastes rather foul...hopefully when I got to Germany I'll be able to try some out based on taste). I've had oxycoton for wisdom teeth (and eventually my appendectomy, when morphine had no noticeable effect [much like NO2 didn't]). Maybe I just don't understand addiction because of my inherent drug resistance, but I feel people will only be controlled by drugs when they're too underpowered to recognize changes in their body.
Here's where I'd like to bring up my dad. He smoked marijuana <i>once</i> when he was 18. He felt sick, got up from the couch and went to the bathroom. Staring in the mirror for a while he began to panic, and after a few minutes he managed to calm down. It managed to trigger a chemical reaction in his brain, basically screwing him over for life. He thereafter suffered from frequent panic attacks, bouts of craziness, constant nervousness (which seemed to be later off-set when he began smoking). If you want 'no real long-term' side-effects may be true for many people, but it only takes the future endangerment of a few people (would you really want to be one of them?).
I'm not quite sure how that problem could be alleviated, aside from replacing programs like D.A.R.E. (if that exists outside the US <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) with responsible drug use teachings (which might actually be a good idea, if you don't need to scare people into not doing illegal drugs, you can teach them the risks and usage of legal drugs). Anyway, I'm all for drugs (though I'd wish people were more responsible using them). I wont use them, but you go right ahead.
I think that abstenance from using drugs should be taught before we encourage its proper use. Remember, programs like D.A.R.E. are oriented for children around 10 years old, not 16+.
There is use, and there is abuse. Some drugs lead very easily to abuse due to chemical dependancies. Marijuana and alchohol can still be mentaly addictive but arn't (IMO) in the same categroy as some harder drugs.
And again IMO it's the types of people many marijuana users come in contact with that leads to the harder drugs not some mental or physical dependancy.
<!--QuoteBegin-Antrel+Mar 3 2005, 11:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Antrel @ Mar 3 2005, 11:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think that abstenance from using drugs should be taught before we encourage its proper use. Remember, programs like D.A.R.E. are oriented for children around 10 years old, not 16+. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Abstinence should be taught before we encourage proper use? We should teach children drugs are bad and then teach them that drugs aren't bad? That's a good way to confuse children, and it's hypocrisy, anyway.
We should teach children the facts behind drugs, something D.A.R.E. doesn't do. D.A.R.E. lies to children in order to teach them that drugs are bad. When children find out that they were lied to, they think that drugs are actually good, because D.A.R.E. must have been lying about that, too. That program actually increases the rate of drug use, as do many abstinence programs in other fields (sex ed).
<!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+Mar 10 2005, 08:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Mar 10 2005, 08:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I thought we weren't allowed to talk about drugs on the boards? If suddenly we are, then I've got an awfully long post to make. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I suppose we are as long as it's a mature discussion and we aren't saying things like "lol i smoke pot u can get it at <x street> in <x city> 4 only five dlrs n ounce lolz".
Comments
My point exactly.
I know the chemical makeup of ethanol or ethylalcohol, the kind that's in beer or schnapps or whatever. It's ridiculously simple. C2 H4 O. I could even draw an ethanol molecule for you if you want to (but don't feel like going through the trouble unless I'm sure you'll appreciate the gesture. If you want your very personal ethanol molecule, just say the word). The effects are well known and documented.
Marijuana, on the other hand, has roughly four hundred different substances in it. I can't even name 1/10 of those. My point is that the substance is so immensely complex that it is still not fully understood, and it is not yet possible to ascertain the exact consequences of consumption.
The example that you mention is cars. Cars are far better understood than marijuana, probably largely owing to the fact that mankind designed them from the ground up. We don't have the blueprints for marijuana.
Thanks to crash testing, we also understand the adverse effects of car collisions very well. So well, in fact, that we design cars to protect the occupants as much as possible in the event of a collision.
I merely wish to dispel the notion of marijuana being a harmless drug, when that is very much in question. Treating something that is potentially harmful as harmless is very dangerous.
I currently refuse to take a stance in the debate on the legality of marijuana, because I can't make up my mind. Spacer, you seem to deduct from my previous post that I wish for marijuana to remain illegal. I refer specifically to this sentence:<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Are you saying we should ban cars too, because people can drive them very fast into other people?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->I took great care NOT to take a stance in the legality debate. Please direct me to the parts of my previous post in which it appears as though I support or oppose the legality of marijuana, and I shall edit that post accordingly. Thank you.
Can you be sure of that? I doubt that you can tell me with 100% certainty. Besides, how much have you had? Of course you may not have <i>noticable</i> after-effects in small doses, but once you're drinking like four or more cups of coffee in the morning before you can even function properly, I think it's pretty obvious. Caffeine is kind of like heroin, the way it manipulates the brain.
Your "upper" effect from chocolate is most likely from the sugar. The caffeine level in milk chocolate is negligible.
If you want more energy, you should be eating fruit, anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->no government can tell me whether I am allowed to get caffeine or alcohol. Its my free choice. Everyone has the right for self-responsibility (if reached a certain age of course).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, but they can tell you that you can't have pot, cocaine, heroin, shrooms, E, speed, opium, a certain konnyaku product, nicotine (until you're 18), alcohol (until you're 18, 21 in the US), porn (until you're 18) or so many other things that they've restricted, right?
They sure as hell can. You may consider it morally wrong, but they still can tell you that you're not allowed to have something.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think hashish is faaaar more dangerous than coffee and or alcohol. Alcohol has a buit-in brake for overuse (like drink too much of it you wake up next day with a headache - This may give you a hint for not overusing it)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
... So does hasish and caffeine. Also, getting a hangover THE NEXT DAY is hardly a brake, more like a kick in the **** after you've just been stabbed. There are even people who don't <i>get</i> hangovers.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->hashish may be physically less damaging than alcohol (I do not know exactly) but totally slows people mentally. A few people I have seen that smoke hashish are more likely to hang around and "do things later"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Is</b> less damaging than alcohol. THC has <i>no long-term mental effects</i>. There are, however, long-term mental effects from alcohol. It <b>eats away</b> at your brain.
Oh, and lolfighter: Anecdotal evidence is still evidence. People have been smoking marijuana for years and they haven't had any ill-effects that weren't caused from mental instability in the first place, other than the smoke and tar.
Also, I would like to point out that most of the musicians in the 60s who were on alcohol and cocaine are dead now (except Bowie and Mick Jagger). Most of the <i>authors</i>, who were on marijuana and LSD, are still alive, such as Robert Anton Wilson.
I'm not trying to say that marijuana is harmless. <b>Nothing is harmless.</b> The harmful part about marijuana is the smoke and tar, but marijuana doesn't even have to be smoked. (If you don't smoke it, the harmful part is carcinogens, but most of them can be removed. THC is fat soluble and the carcinogens are water soluble.) But it's certainly not as harmful as alcohol, caffeine or even aspirin (which contains a concentration of caffeine as well as other drugs).
I not feel that this is actually correct
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, I would like to point out that most of the musicians in the 60s who were on alcohol and cocaine are dead now (except Bowie and Mick Jagger). Most of the authors, who were on marijuana and LSD, are still alive, such as Robert Anton Wilson.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have heard that people who started with "soft" drugs like hashish are likely to get "hard" stuff later
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They sure as hell can. You may consider it morally wrong, but they still can tell you that you're not allowed to have something.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I still have the freedom to ignore any law that I feel is not fair/correct. No government has the moral authority to take away alcohol or coffee. I consider it a natural right to choose whether I want to drink alcohol/coffee (of course I think it makes sense to restrict alcohol while driving). "Democracies" are run by leaders who are elected by the people and act in their favor. If now someone says that it's the will of the people to remove alcohol/caffeine there should be hopefully a few rocks thrown at government buildings
btw in Germany kids that have the age of 16 are allowed to drink "low-alcohol" things like beer. When reaching the age of 18 anything is free.
nuff said
nuff said <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I completely agree. We need to bomb America in order to get rid of the evil crystal meth suppliers and the evil marijuana suppliers.
nuff said <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I completely agree. We need to bomb America in order to get rid of the evil crystal meth suppliers and the evil marijuana suppliers. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
i agree. bomb down their grow-op houses and methlabs. preferably with the druggies still inside. their charred remains will be a grim reminder to all the losers out there who want to grow/make drugs
Carrots have roughly four hundred different substances in them because, just like Marijuana, IT'S A PLANT! Marijuana is just as complex as carrots are, but no one wants to ban carrots because they aren't fully understood.
UC-San Diego's School of Medicine did a study, determining that marijuana use had minimal long term effects on brain function:
<a href='http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/pot/a/blucsd030628.htm' target='_blank'>http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/pot/a/blucsd030628.htm</a>
One marijuana cigarette is worse for you than one tobacco cigarette. However, since you don't (and can't, really) use marijuana even close to as much as you use regular cigarettes, the effect is minimal. If you don't smoke marijuana, then you don't even have these problems.
Marijuana may stop or slow the onset of Alzheimer's:
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4286435.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4286435.stm</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Netherlands' drug policy is the most nonpunitive in Europe. For more than twenty years, Dutch citizens over age eighteen have been permitted to buy and use cannabis (marijuana and hashish) in government-regulated coffee shops. This policy has not resulted in dramatically escalating cannabis use. For most age groups, rates of marijuana use in the Netherlands are similar to those in the United States. However, <b>for young adolescents, rates of marijuana use are lower in the Netherlands than in the United States</b>. The Dutch people overwhelmingly approve of current cannabis policy which seeks to normalize rather than dramatize cannabis use. The Dutch government occasionally revises existing policy, but it remains committed to decriminalization.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Source:http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/
I found this in dozens of places. Americans use marijuana more often than the Dutch do, even though it is legal there and illegal here. Legalizing marijuana may actually <i>reduce</i> the rate of usage.
nuff said <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I completely agree. We need to bomb America in order to get rid of the evil crystal meth suppliers and the evil marijuana suppliers. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i agree. bomb down their grow-op houses and methlabs. preferably with the druggies still inside. their charred remains will be a grim reminder to all the losers out there who want to grow/make drugs <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's interesting that a user named kill4thrills would post something like this.
Do you have any justification for this, or should they be bombed because people who use/make drugs are losers?
kill4thrills: I smoke marijuana. BOMB ME. DEAR GOD.
They're criminals because drugs are illegal, not because they commit violent crimes. Many drug users and producers don't commit any crimes other than producing and possessing drugs. I would guess that there isn't any direct correlation between drug use and non-drug crimes. I think that there is a correlation between poverty and crime, and drug use and poverty, which is why you think that.
China and Vietnam are crappy places to live and their drug policy is harsh.
The Netherlands and similiar countries are nice places to live and their drug policy is lenient.
Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, but it is interesting to think about.
If your policy is adopted, then we should get rid of SUV drivers. They use valuable oil, valuable car parts and cause accidents. They are parasites on society, too. We should bomb people who practice copyright infringement, because they are parasites leeching off the hard work of the people who make creative works. We should kill the unemployed, the homeless, and people on welfare, because they take away more from society than they contribute. Thus, they are parasites.
kill4thrills: I smoke marijuana. BOMB ME. DEAR GOD. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I DO believe it is more dangerous. Maybe not if used responsibly. But I see three abusers for every responsible user, while the people who will occasionally drink alcohol far far outnumber the alcoholics.
I did not wish to imply that something must be done, though. I still believe tobacco to be worse than those two, but the tobacco smokers pay lots of taxes, taxes that would have to come out of my money otherwise.
Maybe that's what we need: Legal marijuana with a hefty tax slapped on it. Maybe.
pot impairment is a serious problem. being high and behind the wheel is just as bad as being drunk. cops need some sort of breathalizer for pot.
and spacer: if the legal system allows me to bomb you to a corpse you can bet i will
...I don't think you are informed about life in the Netherlands. If they're just like that, then we're all racist cowboys with half a dozen guns who spend two hours in church every day instituting theocracy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->pot impairment is a serious problem. being high and behind the wheel is just as bad as being drunk. cops need some sort of breathalizer for pot.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, it's not as bad as being drunk. People high on pot drive more defensively, whereas people drunk on alcohol drive more aggressively and recklessly. You still drive much better if you're sober, but it's not as bad as drunk driving.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and spacer: if the legal system allows me to bomb you to a corpse you can bet i will<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're a wonderful person.
pot impairment is a serious problem. being high and behind the wheel is just as bad as being drunk. cops need some sort of breathalizer for pot.
and spacer: if the legal system allows me to bomb you to a corpse you can bet i will <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I DUB THEE, AVENGERX THE SECOND!
Why not? Can you prove it?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have heard that people who started with "soft" drugs like hashish are likely to get "hard" stuff later<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, and people who play video games are likely to go to school with a twelve-gauge shotgun and start blasting the students. People who move on to much more dangerous drugs usually have some sort of mental instability that was triggered by the drug, it's not the drug itself that's to blame. (Just like the people who kill after playing video games.) What you've heard is a little thing called propaganda. Those who don't move on to harder drugs because of a mental instability have <b>learned</b> about the drug and are smart enough to use it in moderation and do not let it control their lives.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I still have the freedom to ignore any law that I feel is not fair/correct. No government has the moral authority to take away alcohol or coffee. I consider it a natural right to choose whether I want to drink alcohol/coffee (of course I think it makes sense to restrict alcohol while driving). "Democracies" are run by leaders who are elected by the people and act in their favor. If now someone says that it's the will of the people to remove alcohol/caffeine there should be hopefully a few rocks thrown at government buildings<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you think so, then why would you let it being illegal stop you?
You don't have the actual <i>freedom</i>, the physical freedom to ignore laws. But you have the moral freedom. So don't complain if you get arrested for it.
People who want to smoke pot are obviously still smoking pot. Oh, and it wasn't the will of the majority to make pot illegal.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->drugs are for losers. losers deserved to be arrested and given a healthy dose of police brutality.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Have you ever had caffeine, alcohol or any prescription drugs? Any medicines at all? Chocolate? All of these contain drugs and yes, they effect you in similar or the same ways that the illegal ones do. I doubt that they can fit an entire country in prison. Plus, there'd be nobody to guard it.
Not all drug users are "hopeless junkies who use it as an escape." In fact, I've only ever met one drug user like that. The rest all use drugs because they enjoy the effects. They don't use it every day, they don't abuse it. It's just a nice way to relax and feel good, especially with some friends.
Are you a social drinker? Do <i>you</i> drink coffee in the morning? Do you take any form of painkiller when you have a headache? If you answered yes to any of these, you're no worse than they are.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->cause they are parasites. they only contribute crime and are otherwise worthless to society.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You go ahead and keep telling yourself that. You're my favourite kind of hypocrite, the kind that I can mock with my friends.
I'd like to give you guys some insight on my morals... I believe that if something is not theft, it should not be illegal. Most crimes basically boil down to theft:
Homicide is theft.
Rape is theft.
Breach of contract is theft.
Theft is theft. (Obviously.)
Drug use is not theft.
Prostitution is not theft. (Slavery is, so forcing someone to be a prostitute is theft. But the theft of freedom is the crime, not the actual prostitution.)
I used to drink between 0 (heh) and 6 cans (woot, video games) of caffinated soda per day (generally Mountain Dew or something), not because it made me wake up or jumpy (and in fact, I don't believe I've ever been 'hyper' in my life, aside from specifc, non-drug related incidents [in which I still wasn't outwardly hyper] <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->). I drank it based on taste (as I still occasionally will, but iced tea tastes so much better...as does milk and apple juice, but a half gallon of apple juice is a lot on your kidney for a few sequential days). I've consumed upwards of 4 cans of beer within an hour's time with the largest effect being slightly dizzy (...and I think beer tastes rather foul...hopefully when I got to Germany I'll be able to try some out based on taste). I've had oxycoton for wisdom teeth (and eventually my appendectomy, when morphine had no noticeable effect [much like NO2 didn't]). Maybe I just don't understand addiction because of my inherent drug resistance, but I feel people will only be controlled by drugs when they're too underpowered to recognize changes in their body.
Here's where I'd like to bring up my dad. He smoked marijuana <i>once</i> when he was 18. He felt sick, got up from the couch and went to the bathroom. Staring in the mirror for a while he began to panic, and after a few minutes he managed to calm down. It managed to trigger a chemical reaction in his brain, basically screwing him over for life. He thereafter suffered from frequent panic attacks, bouts of craziness, constant nervousness (which seemed to be later off-set when he began smoking). If you want 'no real long-term' side-effects may be true for many people, but it only takes the future endangerment of a few people (would you really want to be one of them?).
I'm not quite sure how that problem could be alleviated, aside from replacing programs like D.A.R.E. (if that exists outside the US <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) with responsible drug use teachings (which might actually be a good idea, if you don't need to scare people into not doing illegal drugs, you can teach them the risks and usage of legal drugs). Anyway, I'm all for drugs (though I'd wish people were more responsible using them). I wont use them, but you go right ahead.
And again IMO it's the types of people many marijuana users come in contact with that leads to the harder drugs not some mental or physical dependancy.
/edit spelling
Abstinence should be taught before we encourage proper use? We should teach children drugs are bad and then teach them that drugs aren't bad? That's a good way to confuse children, and it's hypocrisy, anyway.
We should teach children the facts behind drugs, something D.A.R.E. doesn't do. D.A.R.E. lies to children in order to teach them that drugs are bad. When children find out that they were lied to, they think that drugs are actually good, because D.A.R.E. must have been lying about that, too. That program actually increases the rate of drug use, as do many abstinence programs in other fields (sex ed).
I suppose we are as long as it's a mature discussion and we aren't saying things like "lol i smoke pot u can get it at <x street> in <x city> 4 only five dlrs n ounce lolz".
Go for it.