People say that marijuana is good for you because it's natural, but they don't realize that just because it's natural doesn't mean it's safe. Wanna know what else is natural? Bears. amirite?
It's not half as bad as most drugs, but I agree that saying "it's natural" is a stupid argument. Either way, weed is more harmless than a lot of other drugs. You can't OD, it's really just lung problems to worry about.
I don't smoke and I never will, but if someone else wants to, it's their choice.
Dont even start with me about lung problems, people in my family have died of cancer. I don't smoke and I try to stop people who I care about from doing. But seriously you just made that comment to the wrong person
It's not, and sorry if you took it that way. I didn't mean for it to be like that. I've stopped people from smoking in the past, but my point was that it's not as harmful to the brain chemical-wise and that you can't OD. So sorry if I offended you because I get why you're upset and I didn't mean it like that
if you take tobacco straight from the plant and wrap it in paper or even a leaf and smoke it, its just as bad for you as a cigarette. cigarettes are basically straight up tobacco.
they don't just add in carcinogens, carbon monoxide, or tar though. sure they add some chemicals, but carbon monoxide and tar are the two worst by far and those are naturally occurring when you burn any tobacco product, even straight up tobacco
Well, I actually would say it's pretty safe. I do acknowledge that inhaling any sort of smoke isn't good for your lungs, but unless you're smoking multiple times a day, everyday (even more than someone smokes cigarettes), it doesn't have a strong impact on your lungs, or really any noticeable impact at all.
In regard to the world of drugs, it is the absolute safest one out there. It's not physically addictive (getting addicted to the feeling of something is entirely different. In that sense, you can get addicted to anything), nothing unnatural is added to it, it doesn't make you completely lose yourself, and contrary to popular belief, it doesn't kill this large sum of brain cells. Before someone argues with me on that last point, smoking weed kills about as many brain cells as holding your breath for an extended period of time (mostly because people hold their breath while smoking).
Probably the most unsafe thing about weed is that it has the potential to be a serious gateway drug. Stoners will try to tell you time and time again that this isn't true, but being completely unbiased here, I know otherwise. I have never been so close to hard drugs as I have been after smoking weed.
Wow, that's really interesting. So THC is non-addictive and anti-carcinogenic. Good stuff. I do have to agree with this post though, the naturalistic fallacy doesn't do anything for weed proponents
I can't really disagree with the post either actually haha. I smoke, but I have always acknowledged the fact that inhaling any sort of smoke is harmful to your lungs, even if the smoke from cannabis won't really have a large enough impact on them.
I'm also happy that you're open to knew ideas about weed, rather than the many who assume everything must be bad simply due to all the biased information out there :)
It really should be legal. Besides the fact that it isn't detrimental to your health, the US is missing the perfect opportunity to make a shit ton of money and also save money by not wasting tax dollars on throwing people in jail who don't really deserve it.
You people are forgetting that marijuana doesn't have to be smoked. The arguments here I've seen have been about SMOKING marijuana, but it can be eaten in many forms, smoking is just anothe way of getting into the system. But I'm not saying that it's good for you either way
But I honestly did not know where it was from. How can I give credit where it's due if I don't know? It seems pointless to say you don't know where something is from if you do, since you still aren't claiming that you came up with it originally.
It's not safe because it's natural. It's safe because it doesn't cause many problems. It's not (physically) addictive. There's no solid research on the point of cancer because 1. it's not legal and 2. most weed smokers also smoke cigarettes. The general consensus is that it doesn't have much of an effect on your lung health unless you smoke very regularly. It is also physically impossible to OD on.
However, weed is no longer the natural product that the founding fathers toked. It now has 70% more THC than before because of all of the fucking with it that people did.
That's a complete fallacy. It's a correlation, not a causal relationship. Weed has nothing to do with the fact that they smoke cigarettes. That just makes no sense.
Most people out of everyone do not smoke. If most weed smokers also smoke cigarettes, there is some kind of relationship. If there is any kind of relationship, weed is not safe because it causes smoking, which is, albeit legal, not safe in any way.
...please explain. If <20% of people smoke cigarettes, and most people(>50%) who smoke weed also smoke cigarettes, there is clearly some correlation between smoking weed and smoking cigarettes.
I said there's a correlation. There is absolutely zero evidence, circumstantial or actual, that would lead one to logically conclude that the relationship is causal. People that are already predisposition-ed towards smoking anything are already more likely to do both. The actual act of smoking weed has zero to do with that. There's nothing to point someone towards that thought.
My friend started smoking weed years ago. Whoever says that weed is fine, doesn't realize that it can completely rip you apart. She's more lazier than ever and it's made her lean toward other drugs. Weed has a great chance to fuck you up.
For certain people yes. There are two people I know who I can use as alternate examples for this.
Person A: They started smoking at a very young age. They smoked constantly. They dabbled in harder drugs, but never really got an addiction. They did menially in school and eventually dropped out of their first year of college. HOWEVER, they had a history of serious mental issues and a very addictive personality. It's surprising that they only got hooked on weed. He currently lives in a run down one bedroom apartment.
Person B: Smoked fairly often starting at around 16. Mostly on the weekends, but sometimes during the week. They excelled in high school and are currently getting straight A's in college. They are on their way to becoming a successful nuclear engineer. They also work out five days a week and eat healthy.
Weed can vary from person to person on its effects on your life. I can't tell you that if you smoke weed you'll be fine because you might not be. I can tell you that Person A wouldn't have had to drop out of college or lead his current crappy life if weed was legal. He was arrested a few times for possession and this makes it difficult for him to get a job today.
I always say the same thing, drinking is much worse.
But then when I was smoking every day I thought, if I was drinking every day I'd know I had a serious problem. So if you use this argument to help you, also use it for the other reasons.
EITHER WAY.
Idgaf wether or not weed is good for you. If something that you put in your body messes up with your metal stability, sense of surroundings, etc. Why put it in your body?
And before anyone says that this doesn't happen. I am friends with several druggies who do Marijuana on my bus. They act this way all the time. (Yes, people do smoke on my bus. Our school system sucks balls.)
A number of studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia. It might feel good for a moment, but later you're going to feel pretty shitty as hell when you start to have those disorders.
But seriously, if marijuana causes anxiety and depression, why is it used to treat them?
The problem with those "studies" is that they're often incredibly vague and don't take too many factors into account.
As for the schizophrenia thing, marijuana popularity has skyrocketed in the past 70 years, yet there has been relatively the same amount of diagnosed schizophrenics.
There are depression medicines which can either help or make you more depressed. Just because it's used to treat something doesn't mean it can't make it worse.
Marijuana does cause depression. I know this first hand. Well at least it makes it worse after the high, but the effects fade. I just mean it makes you feel good when you're high. Not a great reason for doing it, but it's mine.
Alcoholics think the same way. They get drunk just to get rid of some kind of emotion and alcohol takes it all away. But just for that moment. It makes them "feel good"
I also find it kinda funny how all the people who do Marijuana are the ones defending it. Kind of making themselves seem like what they're doing isn't so bad. Which they know it is. Why fuck up with your mental stability people? I don't get it.
It enhances mental stability. You have never tried it. You dont know anything about it if you have never tried cannibas. Smoked weed all day everyday during my high school years. Still graduated with a 4.0
No. I don't mean get high to get rid of emotions. I mean get high for fun. It's just fun to do. It really isn't that bad to do. It's about as bad as drinking coca cola. And alcohol is a legitimately addictive substance with the worst withdrawal. Alcoholics don't stop because they can't.
Seriously! I had to argue with some ignorant, stubborn girl about this on 4/20. She said that the effects of weed were the same as caffeine. I was like WTF NO IT'S NOT. And she posed the same argument, that it's a plant. for heaven's sake there are SO MANY things in nature that are harmful for you...like more than half the periodic table. Just because Bromine is a natural element, doesn't mean it's good for me. Heck, if I stuck it in my mouth I would blow up.
depending on it's concentration maybe. Besides, caffeine doesn't cause hallucinations, disorientation, cause respiratory problems, and mess up your memory.
Not even once. I drink green tea on a fairly regular basis (depending on how much sleep I get) which has lower levels of caffeine and I've never gotten headaches or felt any sort of withdrawal symptoms from it.
I have, I got good sleep last week. I went the whole week without it. I was fine. I didn't crave it at all. But I see your point. Caffeine can be just as bad if not worse than weed. They both have their side effects negative and a few positive. It's just better to stay away from both I suppose.
Illicit affirmative fallacy.
The fact one ignores common propaganda would better represent someone strong willed and resilient.
It's the guy on the conformist side that is the one with less will power, not to mention has less motive to do their research.
And if they did do their research, they would have to unarguably agree with every study on pot ever, showing that it benefits you more than it (potentially) damages you if you have a predisposition to schizophrenia.
actually not at all , Hypothetically what if your mom says the stove is hot, and all your friends say the stove is hot. And than your retarded ass comes along and decides to touch the stove despite overwhelming evidence that it is indeed hot. What has been gained, some 3rd degree burns and a lot of tears. In arguing that your smart by going against a mass consensus you either exhibit A general disregard for the opinions of other's, or A complete lack of cognitive reasoning. I hate the idea that everybody needs to test the waters for themselves. That is not to say things should go unquestioned, as that would be silly. However, it is the area of expert's to dispute facts in their area of expertise as one shouldn't be able to make a claim in something they only think then know about. Despite how much ganja he smoked last week the proverbial "stoner steve" is not an expert on marijuana. As for motive, "steve" undoubtedly brings a bias to the table as he's passionate. He will look only for the results he wants to find because it suits his interest, because if your passionate about a subject you will find the results you want to find, its self validation. thats an excuse not science.
Straw man fallacy. I didn't say that arguing against the consensus is always correct.
I said that in this particular scenario, where one can research to find undisputable evidence against the consensus, one would be strong willed to go with evidence over persuasion.
Ironically, even in your scenario, the person who touched the stove is still strong willed for doing so, even if incorrect.
Saying that disputing a mass consensus represents a lack of reasoning, is an example of the argument ad populum fallacy.
People saying something is not overwhelming evidence.
Your notion that because someone smoked ganja, they necessarily have a bias towards information about it, is called the ad hominem circumstantial fallacy, or more accurately the appeal to motive fallacy.
I personally have scoured the internet and talked to professionals to find negative effects from smoking marijuana, and I want to find them. I am always completely objective to how I rationalize anything, whether it's what I want to hear or not.
I smoke it through a vaporizer once every week, because according to medical research funded by billion dollar organizations like CSIRO and the FDA, it's as healthy for me as vitamins.
This is getting stupid, not the argument, the fallacy thing. We get it you took you are currently in an 8th grade reading class, if you can identify the fallacy why in god's names do you feel the need to announce them? if its to discredit me than you really, really need to work on your argument skills. Try making an argument that is short and comprehensible, and also comprehensible to a general group. now do it without fallacies. its damn near impossible as any subject worth depth requires simplification so as to truly get a point across to non-experts.You used fallacies as well, one being "faulty analogy" i your weed vitamin analogy. Suffice to say, vitamins aren't a psychedelic drug. Notice, how this in no way discredited your initial point, unless the reader actually believed weed was a vitamin? What you need to understand is that fallacies are too vague to make, or dispute a claim they mainly serve as red flags, a proverbial "hey." Fallacies are not lies, the don't make a statement untrue, they just mean you should take everything with a grain of sand, which lets face it in the age of the internet you should already do this.
Wtf? Why would vitamins need to be a psychedelic drug? If they were a psychedelic drug it wouldn't be an analogy, I would be saying they're as healthy as another psychedelic drug. I don't think you understand the concept of analogies.
You can't just palm off your mistakes by saying "fallacies don't really matter anyway".
If you want to prove something right, you damn well want to make sure it's not fallacious.
Philosophy is the foundation for discerning the truth in everything.
It is anything but vague. Fallacies are applicable to everything. They are precise rules for logical structure.
These rules are what we use to test if something is scientifically sound, not just hearsay or bullshit pseudoscience.
If you break a formal fallacy, what you said is retarded and illogical and you need to either revise it or abandon it altogether.
It's what forms programming code and advances modern medicine.
It also keeps retarded rhetoric out of adult conversations.
That's why there's a fallacy for you saying I'm in an 8th grade reading class. It's called the Ad Hominum fallacy - Attacking the arguer (who is 24 btw) not the argument.
I believe that weed should be legalized and that it's really not that unsafe to use, but I do agree that this is a stupid argument. And it actually doesn't have a huge impact on the health of your lungs. For one thing, people who smoke weed tend to smoke less than people who smoke cigarettes. Also, it doesn't contain really bad chemicals like cigarettes do.
If I had actually heard it from a cite I was able to source don't you think I would have put the link when I posted it instead of just writing it in the comments? I'm still not taking credit for it this way.
Depends what you mean by safe. Does it have negative effects on your health? Yes. So far as we know are those effects drastic to the casual smoker? No. Is it addictive? No. Is it possible to OD on? No.
It's not exactly safe, but it isn't exactly dangerous.
Technically, because everything is made out of combinations of the same atoms/ fundamental particles, one could use this same logic to say that everything is natural therefore everything is safe. People have become so brainwashed by The media to believe that everything natural is safe, that it is almost scary.
I do love how many people commenting against pot use arguments that are essentially made up. This is one of the funniest POTD comments section i have read.
you and me were pineconing tonight. we're gonna get so high in the everglades. man, your room will smell like Christmas trees for the next three weeks.
This made me laugh but I thought it would be more along the line of naming plants that are lethal like how oleanders are natural, but eating them could kill you.
Weed isn't as bad as people make it out to be. I don't think it would be legal isome places if it was really that bad. And if it can be used for medical purposes, there's no way it's really that harmful. The only time it's bad is when people do it all the time, because it makes them extremely lazy. But even so, this post still made me laugh so I'm not hating or anything haha
I smoke yet, have never touched cigarettes, and have only gotten drunk a couple of times and don't plan on drinking again very soon.
Marijuana has helped me in a lot of ways. It's taken a lot of the stress off. It's helped me cope with losing my mom. And it's made me a more creative individual. Plus I've made some bucks selling bongs to people
It's natural? So is a grass fire, and where I'm from, those will kill you quickly.
Marijuana has different, but as many, chemicals as cigarettes. No matter how natural it is you are inhaling smoke which damages the cells in you esophagus which aid in the movement of mucus. This brings about smoker's cough.
It's also worse for your lungs because of exposer time to the smoke. One smoking weed generally inhales, holds, then exhales. Smokers inhale the exhale.
I just don't pay much attention to drugs, honestly. It's not really something I care for enough to look into. As long as I stay away from them for the sake of my health, that's all that I really care about.
Those of you saying that the only harm it does is to your lungs should take a moment to google Weed smokers versus non smokers. Even though your only arguments are invalid I doubt any of you will change your mind due to the programming of society
I smoke weed nearly every day. Especially on weekends with friends. I also bake it into things and consume it that way. I don't think it should be legalized, because I don't want to be paying taxes on my hobby. I don't, however, smoke bears.
Marijuana is perfectly safe. If you don't mind lung cancer, addiction, loss of clear thoughts, exposure to other, worse drugs, loss of motivation, and a whole lot of other side effects, that is.
It's only mentally addicting for some people, not physically addicting. It does not necessarily expose you to worse drugs, that's a person's choice, you can't blame the drug. And do explain these other side effects, please.
Mental addiction is still addiction. And about the exposure to other drugs, the marijuana people can buy in this day and age is usually not pure, it often will have some other substance mixed in. This not only exposes you to worse drugs, but can lead to physical addiction as well. And as for other side effects, impaired driving ability, lack of judgement,and more dangerous things like throat/windpipe damage and heart complications just to name a few.
It does happen a lot actually. Maybe not cocaine necessarily, but in order to increase the value and make more money selling it, dealers will mix in other things with marijuana.
Of drugs mixed in with marijuana? Well it can be just about any solid drug, usually others that are smoked or sniffed. The dangerous thing about marijuana today is that, with illegal marijuana anyways, you really don't know what you're getting.
You obviously have never purchased marijuana before.
If there is ANY lacing of marijuana, it is done by the end user. It would make no sense to add something like PCP to weed since it's one of the cheapest drugs you can get (weed, that is).
Even if a dealer does lace some pot he's about to sell, he won't be in business long. People know how a marijuana high feels. If something is added to it, the user will be able to tell, and I'd imagine get pissed at being sold garbage. Believe it or not, a lot of dealers rely on reputation (in regards to marijuana).
Marijuana has always been illegal. Recently, you can buy it for medical problems - so if anything, there's less of a chance of it being laced, since there's reputable people growing it for dispensaries. More 'untainted' product on the market, if you will.
No, I haven't bought marijuana before. Nor have I ever used, and I never will. I see your point, and can understand your logic, I'm only going by background information, which I also understand may or may not be correct. And by "illegal marijuana", I meant the present marijuana bought from dealers, as opposed to if it was made totally legal (beyond just medical use). I'd have to agree with one your last point, marijuana bought legitimately would be much safer by comparison.
Drugs being "natural" are a completely different thing than a gay relationship. I agree with the OP, but I support gay rights completely. The two subjects have literally nothing to do with each other
I'm just saying that the same people who are opposing the naturality argument also use it, which is ridiculous, tobacco and marijuana are both natural but harmful substances, homosexual giraffe sex is natural but so is the male giraffe drinking the female giraffe's pee- that doesn't make it okay for humans. I'm not taking a side on here, I'm just saying that using the argument of something being "natural" is ALWAYS invalid.
Ah. I thought you were saying that people who vote YYA on this are more likely to use the argument of naturality. I didn't see how it was connected, but I see what you're saying now
I kind of was, I just noticed lately that people, especially on here, take the side of the argument that is the funniest and is the most linguistically appealing, rather than what makes logical sense. Honestly, if naturality WAS a plausible argument it would make more sense to use it to promote the legalization of marijuana more than gay rights.
There actually are downsides. Inhaling something you aren't supposed to usually always causes lung problems. Regular weed smokers eventually develop the same respiratory problems tobacco smokers do.
Actually, a recent study showed that light marijuana smoking increases lung capacity slightly. I shall post the link as soon as my lazy ass wakes up whenever the sun rises next and gets to a computer.
The air we breathe in on a regular basis is basically just as harmful. If you don't think smoking marijuana has had any positive impact on society I suggest you take all your music, books, and movies and burn them.
We can't help breathing the air we breathe, but we can help adding to the damage by smoking. I know it has some uses, but this post was just about how it's stupid saying it's good for you because it grows naturally. That's a horrible argument for legalization.
It doesn't matter if it has use for anything. The argument is basically saying that everything in nature is harmless so it should be legal. The point is is that not everything is harmless, so the argument doesn't make sense.
It was heavily implied that most or all works of art created were influenced heavily by drugs in your earlier comments. Not that being high is an impediment to creativity, since several of my favorite authors were definitely drug users, but it's very misleading to suggest drugs are one of the main sources of artistic merit.
I didn't say you couldn't. I said you didn't have to be high to be creative. Pretty much all the books I own and a lot of music I listen to was made soberly.
You said "Take all your music and books" and burn them. Not all or even most of the creative and wonderful books and songs in this world are made as a result of drug use.
Seriously? I'm just sick of people giving credit to the pot, not the artist. The artist did everything. I don't know if the pot helped at all or even a little, but not enough to say that there would be no such thing as any of the great songs or books they made without it.
I won't go into too much detail about why I dislike Harry Potter, but it boils down to plot inconsistencies, boring/flat characters, a dull writing style, etc
What do you mean by why? They were influenced by drugs because the artists experimented with drugs. Books would include work by Jack Kerouac/Tom Wolfe/Will Burroughs/Allen Ginsberg/Stephen King/Hunter Thompson, and music would include Pink Floyd, Blind Melon, Violent Femmes, The Doors, and Sublime, among countless others.
I've looked into the authors and bands in the past, so they're off of the top of my head. Feel free to look into any one of them.
I'd like to clarify that I'm not arguing that marijuana is necessarily healthy or unhealthy, but rather that it's greatly influenced media/pop culture.
That's a terrible example, because Harry Potter is a terrible series.
The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, The Rolling Stones, Nirvana, Elliott Smith.. list could go on. As for authors, Jack Kerouac, Hunter S. Thompson, Allen Ginsberg and lots more.
Jimi hendrix died at twenty nine from drug abuse. That my friend, is a shitty argument for drug safety. And he was a fantastic guitarist before the drugs. He just liked to get high. There is no real correlation. The drugs didn't make him play better they just made him trip balls.
Alright, because when you said they were infuenced by drugs, I thought you meant the origin. Also, I get tired having to click the notification instead of just being able to check the reply.
It also kills brain cells and can give you mouth, throat, or lung cancer. You can also get high and do something stupid like drive and end up crashing.
But, you know, nbd.
Dude, my sentence was written in the present tense, as in currently. the sentence was "alcohol isn't" not "alcohol wasn't", nor was it "alcohol has never." Your missing the point of the post which was alcohol is not a carcinogen.
hmmm, you got me there. But really, what doesn't cause cancer these days? It isn't known particularly at this point how alcohol causes cancer, unlike most carcinogens, so i prefer to assume that it may not actually cause cancer, but i could be horribly wrong. d. I would like to point out the risk for weed alone is significantly higher as the weed just has more toxins in sheer quantity. While alcohol is bad, it only has ethanol and ethanol is only one toxin where as weed has as many as cigarettes.
no it doesn't kill brain cells. And nowaadays anything gives you cancer the sun, bottles of water,aspartaime, tuna, bears. And stupid people do stupid shit. I don't drive while high cause I'm not dumb
Cannabis doesn't kill brain cells, and I want to murder you just for saying that. The only study in the ENTIRE WORLD that managed to produce that result was discredited some 40 years ago when it was revealed that the test subjects were suffocated for a length of time longer than it takes brain damage to set in. Not a single test done since then has been able to reproduce that result. And no, no cannabis only user has gotten cancer because of it.
What's your point? People like me have been being polite for decades, now. People like you don't deserve respect in this argument anymore. You've been wrong on the topic forever. You're still wrong. You're always going to be wrong. Why do you keep fighting so hard for a side that's been proven incorrect countless times? If after all this time your side still doesn't get the point, we shouldn't have to be polite or tactful anymore.
It's not half as bad as most drugs, but I agree that saying "it's natural" is a stupid argument. Either way, weed is more harmless than a lot of other drugs. You can't OD, it's really just lung problems to worry about.
I don't smoke and I never will, but if someone else wants to, it's their choice.
It's their choice, but it's not one they're legally allowed to make. Murdering someone is a choice as well, but it's also illegal.
And by the way, I know murdering someone isn't comparable in magnitude to smoking weed.
I understand what you're saying. If it's someone I cared about, I'd try to stop them. But if it's just some idiot, I really could care less.
But then again I also believe weed should be legalized and taxed like cigarettes. So many people do it anyway.
"it's really just lung problems to worry about" Yea, lung FAILURE
Dont even start with me about lung problems, people in my family have died of cancer. I don't smoke and I try to stop people who I care about from doing. But seriously you just made that comment to the wrong person
That was the point of the comment! I've had family members die from lung problems too- because of smoking! You said, well all you have to worry about is lung problems, as if its some minor issue to be blasé about, when in fact it kills people!
It's not, and sorry if you took it that way. I didn't mean for it to be like that. I've stopped people from smoking in the past, but my point was that it's not as harmful to the brain chemical-wise and that you can't OD. So sorry if I offended you because I get why you're upset and I didn't mean it like that
tobacco is natural too... as is sunlight which can give you skin cancer and nasty burns
Tobacco is natural. Cigarettes are not.
if you take tobacco straight from the plant and wrap it in paper or even a leaf and smoke it, its just as bad for you as a cigarette. cigarettes are basically straight up tobacco.
LOL you must not know much about cigarettes.
please enlighten me.
Enlightened enough to curb your condescension yet?
they don't just add in carcinogens, carbon monoxide, or tar though. sure they add some chemicals, but carbon monoxide and tar are the two worst by far and those are naturally occurring when you burn any tobacco product, even straight up tobacco
They add in rat poison dude. And the nicotine is added to keep you addicted.
nicotine is naturally occurring in tobacco
I think we have another really good troll here...
seriously look it up..
http://healthliteracy.worlded.o...1whats_in.html
If you wrap anything up in paper and smoke it, it's all pretty bad for you...
I don't know about weed but if given the chance to smoke a bear I would
Well, I actually would say it's pretty safe. I do acknowledge that inhaling any sort of smoke isn't good for your lungs, but unless you're smoking multiple times a day, everyday (even more than someone smokes cigarettes), it doesn't have a strong impact on your lungs, or really any noticeable impact at all.
In regard to the world of drugs, it is the absolute safest one out there. It's not physically addictive (getting addicted to the feeling of something is entirely different. In that sense, you can get addicted to anything), nothing unnatural is added to it, it doesn't make you completely lose yourself, and contrary to popular belief, it doesn't kill this large sum of brain cells. Before someone argues with me on that last point, smoking weed kills about as many brain cells as holding your breath for an extended period of time (mostly because people hold their breath while smoking).
Probably the most unsafe thing about weed is that it has the potential to be a serious gateway drug. Stoners will try to tell you time and time again that this isn't true, but being completely unbiased here, I know otherwise. I have never been so close to hard drugs as I have been after smoking weed.
Whats your source for your first claim? I read that weed smoke has many of the same dangerous chemicals that cigarette smoke has.
The dangerous chemicals they share that you are thinking about are carcinogens. It's just that the effect is different.
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/new...c-than-tobacco
This article in particular also puts it in an interesting perspective :)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html
Wow, that's really interesting. So THC is non-addictive and anti-carcinogenic. Good stuff. I do have to agree with this post though, the naturalistic fallacy doesn't do anything for weed proponents
I can't really disagree with the post either actually haha. I smoke, but I have always acknowledged the fact that inhaling any sort of smoke is harmful to your lungs, even if the smoke from cannabis won't really have a large enough impact on them.
I'm also happy that you're open to knew ideas about weed, rather than the many who assume everything must be bad simply due to all the biased information out there :)
I've tried it a few times but wasn't sure if it should be legal. But so far most evidence I've seen seems to indicate it should be legalized
It really should be legal. Besides the fact that it isn't detrimental to your health, the US is missing the perfect opportunity to make a shit ton of money and also save money by not wasting tax dollars on throwing people in jail who don't really deserve it.
You people are forgetting that marijuana doesn't have to be smoked. The arguments here I've seen have been about SMOKING marijuana, but it can be eaten in many forms, smoking is just anothe way of getting into the system. But I'm not saying that it's good for you either way
Legalize bears.
My friend told me this, so I don't know where to credit it just in case she wasn't being original.
thank you for introducing me to this channel!now i have more excuses not to do hw
I love you for posting this, spent all night laughing my ass off watching these videos.
Kinda funny how this post uses the quote to argue against smoking, yet the actual video is completely supportive of smoking :P
I guess stating that I didn't know the original source wasn't enough for me to keep credit for this post. Awesome.
But I honestly did not know where it was from. How can I give credit where it's due if I don't know? It seems pointless to say you don't know where something is from if you do, since you still aren't claiming that you came up with it originally.
But I still never claimed it as my own. The first thing I did after I posted it was say that I didn't come up with it.
Am I the only one who read the word "bears" in Dwight's voice?
absolutely not
Nope.
Yup
Oh.
I would say thank you, but I'm sorta creeped out, not gonna lie.
I don't give two shits about what someone puts into their body, mostly because it doesn't affect me personally.
But I wonder how many people will stop bragging about how they "got soooo stoned lst weekend lololol" if it's ever legalized.
It's not safe because it's natural. It's safe because it doesn't cause many problems. It's not (physically) addictive. There's no solid research on the point of cancer because 1. it's not legal and 2. most weed smokers also smoke cigarettes. The general consensus is that it doesn't have much of an effect on your lung health unless you smoke very regularly. It is also physically impossible to OD on.
However, weed is no longer the natural product that the founding fathers toked. It now has 70% more THC than before because of all of the fucking with it that people did.
"most weed smokers also smoke cigarettes"- Call me what you want, but I think that's a problem, making weed unsafe.
That's a complete fallacy. It's a correlation, not a causal relationship. Weed has nothing to do with the fact that they smoke cigarettes. That just makes no sense.
Most people out of everyone do not smoke. If most weed smokers also smoke cigarettes, there is some kind of relationship. If there is any kind of relationship, weed is not safe because it causes smoking, which is, albeit legal, not safe in any way.
...please explain. If <20% of people smoke cigarettes, and most people(>50%) who smoke weed also smoke cigarettes, there is clearly some correlation between smoking weed and smoking cigarettes.
I said there's a correlation. There is absolutely zero evidence, circumstantial or actual, that would lead one to logically conclude that the relationship is causal. People that are already predisposition-ed towards smoking anything are already more likely to do both. The actual act of smoking weed has zero to do with that. There's nothing to point someone towards that thought.
OK, I get what you're saying.
My friend started smoking weed years ago. Whoever says that weed is fine, doesn't realize that it can completely rip you apart. She's more lazier than ever and it's made her lean toward other drugs. Weed has a great chance to fuck you up.
For certain people yes. There are two people I know who I can use as alternate examples for this.
Person A: They started smoking at a very young age. They smoked constantly. They dabbled in harder drugs, but never really got an addiction. They did menially in school and eventually dropped out of their first year of college. HOWEVER, they had a history of serious mental issues and a very addictive personality. It's surprising that they only got hooked on weed. He currently lives in a run down one bedroom apartment.
Person B: Smoked fairly often starting at around 16. Mostly on the weekends, but sometimes during the week. They excelled in high school and are currently getting straight A's in college. They are on their way to becoming a successful nuclear engineer. They also work out five days a week and eat healthy.
Weed can vary from person to person on its effects on your life. I can't tell you that if you smoke weed you'll be fine because you might not be. I can tell you that Person A wouldn't have had to drop out of college or lead his current crappy life if weed was legal. He was arrested a few times for possession and this makes it difficult for him to get a job today.
my friend smoked weed... and than got into Harvard. Thanks for the mixed messages life!
Yes, that's a stupid argument. But Marijuana should still be legalized.
Boy, I did NOT bother reading all those comments up there...
This has to be POTD.
Also, i don't get why pot is any worse than alcohol or smoking. Just... Think about it.
I always say the same thing, drinking is much worse.
But then when I was smoking every day I thought, if I was drinking every day I'd know I had a serious problem. So if you use this argument to help you, also use it for the other reasons.
EITHER WAY.
Idgaf wether or not weed is good for you. If something that you put in your body messes up with your metal stability, sense of surroundings, etc. Why put it in your body?
And before anyone says that this doesn't happen. I am friends with several druggies who do Marijuana on my bus. They act this way all the time. (Yes, people do smoke on my bus. Our school system sucks balls.)
Who says it doesn't fuck that up? It messes it up a lot. It's because it can be entertaining as shit. People do it because it makes them feel good.
A number of studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia. It might feel good for a moment, but later you're going to feel pretty shitty as hell when you start to have those disorders.
That's why you never stop getting high
But seriously, if marijuana causes anxiety and depression, why is it used to treat them?
The problem with those "studies" is that they're often incredibly vague and don't take too many factors into account.
As for the schizophrenia thing, marijuana popularity has skyrocketed in the past 70 years, yet there has been relatively the same amount of diagnosed schizophrenics.
There are depression medicines which can either help or make you more depressed. Just because it's used to treat something doesn't mean it can't make it worse.
True, but if a medicine had a better chance of making you more depressed compared to treating depression, it would be pulled from the market.
Marijuana does cause depression. I know this first hand. Well at least it makes it worse after the high, but the effects fade. I just mean it makes you feel good when you're high. Not a great reason for doing it, but it's mine.
I think you've just been getting bad shit.
I never feel depressed when I'm coming down.
Nah. It's a known side effect. It happens to some people.
Alcoholics think the same way. They get drunk just to get rid of some kind of emotion and alcohol takes it all away. But just for that moment. It makes them "feel good"
I also find it kinda funny how all the people who do Marijuana are the ones defending it. Kind of making themselves seem like what they're doing isn't so bad. Which they know it is. Why fuck up with your mental stability people? I don't get it.
It enhances mental stability. You have never tried it. You dont know anything about it if you have never tried cannibas. Smoked weed all day everyday during my high school years. Still graduated with a 4.0
No. I don't mean get high to get rid of emotions. I mean get high for fun. It's just fun to do. It really isn't that bad to do. It's about as bad as drinking coca cola. And alcohol is a legitimately addictive substance with the worst withdrawal. Alcoholics don't stop because they can't.
I would never do drugs that affect my metal stability. I need my magnets to work proper, and my alloys to stay blended. its only common sense.
Seriously! I had to argue with some ignorant, stubborn girl about this on 4/20. She said that the effects of weed were the same as caffeine. I was like WTF NO IT'S NOT. And she posed the same argument, that it's a plant. for heaven's sake there are SO MANY things in nature that are harmful for you...like more than half the periodic table. Just because Bromine is a natural element, doesn't mean it's good for me. Heck, if I stuck it in my mouth I would blow up.
depending on it's concentration maybe. Besides, caffeine doesn't cause hallucinations, disorientation, cause respiratory problems, and mess up your memory.
Not even once. I drink green tea on a fairly regular basis (depending on how much sleep I get) which has lower levels of caffeine and I've never gotten headaches or felt any sort of withdrawal symptoms from it.
I have, I got good sleep last week. I went the whole week without it. I was fine. I didn't crave it at all. But I see your point. Caffeine can be just as bad if not worse than weed. They both have their side effects negative and a few positive. It's just better to stay away from both I suppose.
Illicit affirmative fallacy.
The fact one ignores common propaganda would better represent someone strong willed and resilient.
It's the guy on the conformist side that is the one with less will power, not to mention has less motive to do their research.
And if they did do their research, they would have to unarguably agree with every study on pot ever, showing that it benefits you more than it (potentially) damages you if you have a predisposition to schizophrenia.
actually not at all , Hypothetically what if your mom says the stove is hot, and all your friends say the stove is hot. And than your retarded ass comes along and decides to touch the stove despite overwhelming evidence that it is indeed hot. What has been gained, some 3rd degree burns and a lot of tears. In arguing that your smart by going against a mass consensus you either exhibit A general disregard for the opinions of other's, or A complete lack of cognitive reasoning. I hate the idea that everybody needs to test the waters for themselves. That is not to say things should go unquestioned, as that would be silly. However, it is the area of expert's to dispute facts in their area of expertise as one shouldn't be able to make a claim in something they only think then know about. Despite how much ganja he smoked last week the proverbial "stoner steve" is not an expert on marijuana. As for motive, "steve" undoubtedly brings a bias to the table as he's passionate. He will look only for the results he wants to find because it suits his interest, because if your passionate about a subject you will find the results you want to find, its self validation. thats an excuse not science.
Straw man fallacy. I didn't say that arguing against the consensus is always correct.
I said that in this particular scenario, where one can research to find undisputable evidence against the consensus, one would be strong willed to go with evidence over persuasion.
Ironically, even in your scenario, the person who touched the stove is still strong willed for doing so, even if incorrect.
Saying that disputing a mass consensus represents a lack of reasoning, is an example of the argument ad populum fallacy.
People saying something is not overwhelming evidence.
Your notion that because someone smoked ganja, they necessarily have a bias towards information about it, is called the ad hominem circumstantial fallacy, or more accurately the appeal to motive fallacy.
I personally have scoured the internet and talked to professionals to find negative effects from smoking marijuana, and I want to find them. I am always completely objective to how I rationalize anything, whether it's what I want to hear or not.
I smoke it through a vaporizer once every week, because according to medical research funded by billion dollar organizations like CSIRO and the FDA, it's as healthy for me as vitamins.
This is getting stupid, not the argument, the fallacy thing. We get it you took you are currently in an 8th grade reading class, if you can identify the fallacy why in god's names do you feel the need to announce them? if its to discredit me than you really, really need to work on your argument skills. Try making an argument that is short and comprehensible, and also comprehensible to a general group. now do it without fallacies. its damn near impossible as any subject worth depth requires simplification so as to truly get a point across to non-experts.You used fallacies as well, one being "faulty analogy" i your weed vitamin analogy. Suffice to say, vitamins aren't a psychedelic drug. Notice, how this in no way discredited your initial point, unless the reader actually believed weed was a vitamin? What you need to understand is that fallacies are too vague to make, or dispute a claim they mainly serve as red flags, a proverbial "hey." Fallacies are not lies, the don't make a statement untrue, they just mean you should take everything with a grain of sand, which lets face it in the age of the internet you should already do this.
Wtf? Why would vitamins need to be a psychedelic drug? If they were a psychedelic drug it wouldn't be an analogy, I would be saying they're as healthy as another psychedelic drug. I don't think you understand the concept of analogies.
You can't just palm off your mistakes by saying "fallacies don't really matter anyway".
If you want to prove something right, you damn well want to make sure it's not fallacious.
Philosophy is the foundation for discerning the truth in everything.
It is anything but vague. Fallacies are applicable to everything. They are precise rules for logical structure.
These rules are what we use to test if something is scientifically sound, not just hearsay or bullshit pseudoscience.
If you break a formal fallacy, what you said is retarded and illogical and you need to either revise it or abandon it altogether.
It's what forms programming code and advances modern medicine.
It also keeps retarded rhetoric out of adult conversations.
That's why there's a fallacy for you saying I'm in an 8th grade reading class. It's called the Ad Hominum fallacy - Attacking the arguer (who is 24 btw) not the argument.
My opinion on this is that it SHOULD be legal, but you SHOULDN'T do it
I don't need to smoke weed to feel good about myself or get away from my problems. Grow a pair and find something else that's legal that can do that
Is it horribly ironic that you're from Ireland?
I believe that weed should be legalized and that it's really not that unsafe to use, but I do agree that this is a stupid argument. And it actually doesn't have a huge impact on the health of your lungs. For one thing, people who smoke weed tend to smoke less than people who smoke cigarettes. Also, it doesn't contain really bad chemicals like cigarettes do.
I've never heard someone say it's GOOD for you. Just that it isn't bad.
Either way, I have never seen or heard of someone dying from and overdose on marijuana.
Whereas I hear of people dying from alcohol and tobacco related usage all the time.
Marijuana, where it may not necessarily be HEALTHY, is, from what I know, not a health threat in the least.
If I had actually heard it from a cite I was able to source don't you think I would have put the link when I posted it instead of just writing it in the comments? I'm still not taking credit for it this way.
Sigh. People actually think it's safe?
It's safer than tobacco and alcohol, isn't it?
Yes. It's still not safe though.
Depends what you mean by safe. Does it have negative effects on your health? Yes. So far as we know are those effects drastic to the casual smoker? No. Is it addictive? No. Is it possible to OD on? No.
It's not exactly safe, but it isn't exactly dangerous.
dude, dandelions are the key ingredient in the "easy bake oven" cake batter! get with the times.
You must not know socks.
What? Ohhhh. It was a joke i didn't get. Not that bad
Technically, because everything is made out of combinations of the same atoms/ fundamental particles, one could use this same logic to say that everything is natural therefore everything is safe. People have become so brainwashed by The media to believe that everything natural is safe, that it is almost scary.
They're just saying that they think it's better for you than man made chemical drugs.
Ever smoke a bear JACKASS?
lol agreed
This is incredibly offensive to us bears!
I do love how many people commenting against pot use arguments that are essentially made up. This is one of the funniest POTD comments section i have read.
But you don't inhale bears...
I do
You inhale cats.
you and me favvkes lets go ride the grizzly. if you know what i'm saying. Does a bear shit in the woods, no! it gets baked as hell!
(it gets literally baked.)
I've been making this argument for years. Only i said cyanide, cobra venom, and toad stools
is cyanide organic? i think anthrax is.. but i'm not sure about cyanide.
learning is power!
Well there are traces of it in apple cores. Im not sure if thats tge only place they get it from
Pinecones are natural:) But nobody wants to eat them even if they are
you and me were pineconing tonight. we're gonna get so high in the everglades. man, your room will smell like Christmas trees for the next three weeks.
This was just top comment on nigahiga's latest video (How to spot a pothead)
This made me laugh but I thought it would be more along the line of naming plants that are lethal like how oleanders are natural, but eating them could kill you.
Bears eat beets.
Weed isn't as bad as people make it out to be. I don't think it would be legal isome places if it was really that bad. And if it can be used for medical purposes, there's no way it's really that harmful. The only time it's bad is when people do it all the time, because it makes them extremely lazy. But even so, this post still made me laugh so I'm not hating or anything haha
I just read something very similar to this not even a minute ago.
I have not heard a single person say that in all of my years.
I smoke yet, have never touched cigarettes, and have only gotten drunk a couple of times and don't plan on drinking again very soon.
Marijuana has helped me in a lot of ways. It's taken a lot of the stress off. It's helped me cope with losing my mom. And it's made me a more creative individual. Plus I've made some bucks selling bongs to people
Not to mention it's fun as hell.
It's natural? So is a grass fire, and where I'm from, those will kill you quickly.
Marijuana has different, but as many, chemicals as cigarettes. No matter how natural it is you are inhaling smoke which damages the cells in you esophagus which aid in the movement of mucus. This brings about smoker's cough.
It's also worse for your lungs because of exposer time to the smoke. One smoking weed generally inhales, holds, then exhales. Smokers inhale the exhale.
True, but the typical weed smoker smokes much less often that someone who smokes cigarettes.
And maximum THC absorption happens between 3 and 5 seconds so the smart smoker doesn't hold it in for long than that.
Perhaps for someone who smokes once a day, but there are many who smoke much more often than that. The comments below hint at that.
They probably don't smoke as much since its not as easy to obtain.
It is for me
Lol, drugs are incredibly easy to get. Just maybe not under your rock.
Probably cause I don't pay much attention to drug dealing cause I have more things to do in life?
Lol, yeah that's the reason. Not because you're oblivious to what actually happens around you. You are either really young or really naive.
I just don't pay much attention to drugs, honestly. It's not really something I care for enough to look into. As long as I stay away from them for the sake of my health, that's all that I really care about.
Those of you saying that the only harm it does is to your lungs should take a moment to google Weed smokers versus non smokers. Even though your only arguments are invalid I doubt any of you will change your mind due to the programming of society
What are the arguments that are invalid?
EDIT: Wait. Are you talking to smokers or non smokers about the arguments?
I am refering to those who are saying that the only negative effects are the issues with the lungs.
The most prevalent effects are. What are the invalid arguments?
people who smoke marijuana alone have been tested as having healthier lungs then non smokers
Hm. Not according to my google search, but okay. So you're on the side of smokers?
I smoke weed nearly every day. Especially on weekends with friends. I also bake it into things and consume it that way. I don't think it should be legalized, because I don't want to be paying taxes on my hobby. I don't, however, smoke bears.
It would probably make it generally cheaper to legalize it.
come on grow a pair, and smoke a bear! Be an adult!
I've never heard an argument for marijuana saying it's natural
Marijuana is perfectly safe. If you don't mind lung cancer, addiction, loss of clear thoughts, exposure to other, worse drugs, loss of motivation, and a whole lot of other side effects, that is.
I think you're the first person who's brought up those issues with weed in this comments section.
It's only mentally addicting for some people, not physically addicting. It does not necessarily expose you to worse drugs, that's a person's choice, you can't blame the drug. And do explain these other side effects, please.
Mental addiction is still addiction. And about the exposure to other drugs, the marijuana people can buy in this day and age is usually not pure, it often will have some other substance mixed in. This not only exposes you to worse drugs, but can lead to physical addiction as well. And as for other side effects, impaired driving ability, lack of judgement,and more dangerous things like throat/windpipe damage and heart complications just to name a few.
"the marijuana people can buy in this day and age is usually not pure, it often will have some other substance mixed in."
Lol whut. No. This isn't cocaine we're talking about...
Dealers aren't going to mix drugs more expensive than marijuana with marijuana. That's not a very good business model.
It does happen a lot actually. Maybe not cocaine necessarily, but in order to increase the value and make more money selling it, dealers will mix in other things with marijuana.
Give me some examples.
Of drugs mixed in with marijuana? Well it can be just about any solid drug, usually others that are smoked or sniffed. The dangerous thing about marijuana today is that, with illegal marijuana anyways, you really don't know what you're getting.
You obviously have never purchased marijuana before.
If there is ANY lacing of marijuana, it is done by the end user. It would make no sense to add something like PCP to weed since it's one of the cheapest drugs you can get (weed, that is).
Even if a dealer does lace some pot he's about to sell, he won't be in business long. People know how a marijuana high feels. If something is added to it, the user will be able to tell, and I'd imagine get pissed at being sold garbage. Believe it or not, a lot of dealers rely on reputation (in regards to marijuana).
Marijuana has always been illegal. Recently, you can buy it for medical problems - so if anything, there's less of a chance of it being laced, since there's reputable people growing it for dispensaries. More 'untainted' product on the market, if you will.
No, I haven't bought marijuana before. Nor have I ever used, and I never will. I see your point, and can understand your logic, I'm only going by background information, which I also understand may or may not be correct. And by "illegal marijuana", I meant the present marijuana bought from dealers, as opposed to if it was made totally legal (beyond just medical use). I'd have to agree with one your last point, marijuana bought legitimately would be much safer by comparison.
I bet all of you on the OP's side that oppose naturality as a plausible argument use it as an argument for homosexuality. Just sayin.
That's the most ignorant thing I've heard in a while.
How so?
Drugs being "natural" are a completely different thing than a gay relationship. I agree with the OP, but I support gay rights completely. The two subjects have literally nothing to do with each other
I'm just saying that the same people who are opposing the naturality argument also use it, which is ridiculous, tobacco and marijuana are both natural but harmful substances, homosexual giraffe sex is natural but so is the male giraffe drinking the female giraffe's pee- that doesn't make it okay for humans. I'm not taking a side on here, I'm just saying that using the argument of something being "natural" is ALWAYS invalid.
Ah. I thought you were saying that people who vote YYA on this are more likely to use the argument of naturality. I didn't see how it was connected, but I see what you're saying now
I kind of was, I just noticed lately that people, especially on here, take the side of the argument that is the funniest and is the most linguistically appealing, rather than what makes logical sense. Honestly, if naturality WAS a plausible argument it would make more sense to use it to promote the legalization of marijuana more than gay rights.
Got it. I agree on that part
Alright, cool. Wow, this has never happened to me before, I'm not quite sure how to react.
Haha! I try to be pretty open minded because usually people have valid points. Usually. I mean you do get some real idiots on here haha
You forgot to go anonymous
Stupid logic.
So is saying weed is safe because it's natural. That's the point.
Weed is safe though. The only side affect or down side is that you might get arrested.
There actually are downsides. Inhaling something you aren't supposed to usually always causes lung problems. Regular weed smokers eventually develop the same respiratory problems tobacco smokers do.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view..._easy_on_lungs
Link, as promised.
Actually, a recent study showed that light marijuana smoking increases lung capacity slightly. I shall post the link as soon as my lazy ass wakes up whenever the sun rises next and gets to a computer.
actually in a recent study weed smokers had lungs that were 15% healthier then non smokers at all
Bullshit
lol, seth rogan is not a scientist.
The air we breathe in on a regular basis is basically just as harmful. If you don't think smoking marijuana has had any positive impact on society I suggest you take all your music, books, and movies and burn them.
We can't help breathing the air we breathe, but we can help adding to the damage by smoking. I know it has some uses, but this post was just about how it's stupid saying it's good for you because it grows naturally. That's a horrible argument for legalization.
I personally don't think it's a dumb argument.
But not everything in nature is harmless, what about all of the poisonous plants?
Thats harmful to us, it has use for other things.
It doesn't matter if it has use for anything. The argument is basically saying that everything in nature is harmless so it should be legal. The point is is that not everything is harmless, so the argument doesn't make sense.
You're currently arguing with a guy who thinks all drugs should be legal. So I really don't care about that argument.
Please join a debate team. Not because you'd win, but because it'd be hilarious.
you're wrong. give it up.
The least they could do is form an argument or admit to their trollery.
It's an opinion, he can't be wrong.
Some people theses days seriously need to research the definitions of the words preference, opinion, and fact
it's not an opinion. the statement that marijuana is entirely bad for you is a FACT.
And the opinion that marijuana should be legal is...well an opnion
Not entirely, it had pharmacological uses as well
that's a common misconception; it's not true.
Give me sources
I don't need to give you "sources" for it to be true.
lol you have to have some proof though. Wait, that's called sources haha
because weed, and other drugs influenced them..
Not every book, movie or song was influenced by drugs.
It's called an imgination and creativity, some people actually know how to use it.
I didn't say every. You can still be creative and imaginative while being high.
It was heavily implied that most or all works of art created were influenced heavily by drugs in your earlier comments. Not that being high is an impediment to creativity, since several of my favorite authors were definitely drug users, but it's very misleading to suggest drugs are one of the main sources of artistic merit.
I didn't say you couldn't. I said you didn't have to be high to be creative. Pretty much all the books I own and a lot of music I listen to was made soberly.
You said "Take all your music and books" and burn them. Not all or even most of the creative and wonderful books and songs in this world are made as a result of drug use.
Seriously? I'm just sick of people giving credit to the pot, not the artist. The artist did everything. I don't know if the pot helped at all or even a little, but not enough to say that there would be no such thing as any of the great songs or books they made without it.
He's referring to books that aren't shitty YA fiction :v
I'd assume Jack Kerouac's books specifically
We've gotten into something. Still, why would they be influenced by drugs? Also I don't understand why HP sucks. Please explain to me
I won't go into too much detail about why I dislike Harry Potter, but it boils down to plot inconsistencies, boring/flat characters, a dull writing style, etc
What do you mean by why? They were influenced by drugs because the artists experimented with drugs. Books would include work by Jack Kerouac/Tom Wolfe/Will Burroughs/Allen Ginsberg/Stephen King/Hunter Thompson, and music would include Pink Floyd, Blind Melon, Violent Femmes, The Doors, and Sublime, among countless others.
I've looked into the authors and bands in the past, so they're off of the top of my head. Feel free to look into any one of them.
I'd like to clarify that I'm not arguing that marijuana is necessarily healthy or unhealthy, but rather that it's greatly influenced media/pop culture.
That's a terrible example, because Harry Potter is a terrible series.
The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, The Rolling Stones, Nirvana, Elliott Smith.. list could go on. As for authors, Jack Kerouac, Hunter S. Thompson, Allen Ginsberg and lots more.
Jimi hendrix died at twenty nine from drug abuse. That my friend, is a shitty argument for drug safety. And he was a fantastic guitarist before the drugs. He just liked to get high. There is no real correlation. The drugs didn't make him play better they just made him trip balls.
My English class decided that Thoreau did lots of pot when he wrote Walden
YEAH AND DON'T YOU FORGET ABOUT TWILIGHT. (: <3
Harry potter is NOT a terrible series, that's your s opinon. Secondly, how would you know those are influenced by drugs?
Because they either wrote about it or were open about it?
Should check out Hunter S. Thompson.
Alright, because when you said they were infuenced by drugs, I thought you meant the origin. Also, I get tired having to click the notification instead of just being able to check the reply.
Come on guys, can't we all just get a bong?
:3 hehe c wut i did thar
you need to fix that typo.
It also kills brain cells and can give you mouth, throat, or lung cancer. You can also get high and do something stupid like drive and end up crashing.
But, you know, nbd.
I suggest you avoid alcohol as well.
You say that like I think marijuana is the only imperative drug out there.
alcohol doesn't give you throat cancer. It also contains very few carcinogens, and isn't grown in dank basements and sold by sketch dealers.
At one point is was though. Ever heard of the prohibition?
Dude, my sentence was written in the present tense, as in currently. the sentence was "alcohol isn't" not "alcohol wasn't", nor was it "alcohol has never." Your missing the point of the post which was alcohol is not a carcinogen.
Alcohol causes a pretty wide variety of cancer, including throat cancer.
hmmm, you got me there. But really, what doesn't cause cancer these days? It isn't known particularly at this point how alcohol causes cancer, unlike most carcinogens, so i prefer to assume that it may not actually cause cancer, but i could be horribly wrong. d. I would like to point out the risk for weed alone is significantly higher as the weed just has more toxins in sheer quantity. While alcohol is bad, it only has ethanol and ethanol is only one toxin where as weed has as many as cigarettes.
no it doesn't kill brain cells. And nowaadays anything gives you cancer the sun, bottles of water,aspartaime, tuna, bears. And stupid people do stupid shit. I don't drive while high cause I'm not dumb
you may not drive, but the simple fact that you smoke means you're not exactly the sterling example of killer life decisions.
Cannabis doesn't kill brain cells, and I want to murder you just for saying that. The only study in the ENTIRE WORLD that managed to produce that result was discredited some 40 years ago when it was revealed that the test subjects were suffocated for a length of time longer than it takes brain damage to set in. Not a single test done since then has been able to reproduce that result. And no, no cannabis only user has gotten cancer because of it.
Wow, you definitely did not overreact in a childish way whatsoever.
What's your point? People like me have been being polite for decades, now. People like you don't deserve respect in this argument anymore. You've been wrong on the topic forever. You're still wrong. You're always going to be wrong. Why do you keep fighting so hard for a side that's been proven incorrect countless times? If after all this time your side still doesn't get the point, we shouldn't have to be polite or tactful anymore.
Okay, I admit I was wrong.
See, acting mature during an argument.