Taboo Topics (Heavily moderated)

[Reyo]

My stance is still that, while it's not "the world's most dangerous thing" that a lot of pot smokers are saying other people say about it, it's also not "God's gift to humanity". You're still inhaling smoke, which is damaging to your lungs, and it's still impacting your ability to function in a normal manner (whether or not that impact is "less" or "more" than other stuff is irrelevant). People definitely shouldn't be allowed to smoke weed and drive simultaneously. People shouldn't even be allowed to be high and drive simultaneously. If anything, it's just to be safe, and has nothing to do with "the government being afraid of this harmless, magnificent, godsend thing!" We may not know everything about it, but the things we do know include that it impacts your mind, you need one or both hands to use it, and that it is still smoke getting into your lungs, where smoke shouldn't be getting. Those three things alone should be justification enough.

[Syobon]

Justification for what? Throwing people in jail?

[Galaxy Man]

Justification for it being not fucking safe.

[Stranaton]

I see no reason to limit sale or use. If they want to abuse themselves, I have no problem with it.

[owenster]

The immediate effects, yes. However, a single joint contains five times more carcinogens than a cigarette.

What?

Cigarettes contain rat poison and tar among other things. People don't add things to marijuana, but hell I wouldn't know. I do know that the plant does not have naturally occurring arsenic

[Lambeth]

My stance is still that, while it's not "the world's most dangerous thing" that a lot of pot smokers are saying other people say about it, it's also not "God's gift to humanity". You're still inhaling smoke, which is damaging to your lungs, and it's still impacting your ability to function in a normal manner (whether or not that impact is "less" or "more" than other stuff is irrelevant). People definitely shouldn't be allowed to smoke weed and drive simultaneously. People shouldn't even be allowed to be high and drive simultaneously. If anything, it's just to be safe, and has nothing to do with "the government being afraid of this harmless, magnificent, godsend thing!" We may not know everything about it, but the things we do know include that it impacts your mind, you need one or both hands to use it, and that it is still smoke getting into your lungs, where smoke shouldn't be getting. Those three things alone should be justification enough.

Not disagreeing with you there, it should be at least as well regulated as alcohol.

Out of curiosity how many of you guys were visited by DARE as a kid? Or have you seen any of the Under The Influence commercials? Because a lot of what they say is kinda bullshit.

[Syobon]

The immediate effects, yes. However, a single joint contains five times more carcinogens than a cigarette.

What?

Cigarettes contain rat poison and tar among other things. People don't add things to marijuana, but hell I wouldn't know. I do know that the plant does not have naturally occurring arsenic

Marijuana is commonly smoked together with tobacco to dull the effect and preserve your stash. Other than that, cannabis smoke contains a bunch of different chemicals, with contradicting effects which makes the whole thing a bit difficult to study. It contains tar too because that's just what you get if you burn plants and condense the smoke.

[owenster]

Ah okay I did not know that since I do not smoke anything at all. I blame the D.A.R.E. program then because they would always spout how cigarettes are filled with so many poisonous chemicals that something like marijuana would pale in comparison since you always just see the dried leaves and such being used.

[Galaxy Man]

Cigarettes don't really contain things like rat poison either, but they contain the same main ingredients in non-lethal amounts.

[Reyo]

Justification for what? Throwing people in jail?

Justification for why people shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel of a vehicle while high/smoking. I never said the word "jail", or even made a mention of any sort of punishment.

Not disagreeing with you there, it should be at least as well regulated as alcohol.

Out of curiosity how many of you guys were visited by DARE as a kid? Or have you seen any of the Under The Influence commercials? Because a lot of what they say is kinda bullshit.

Yes, I was, but then again the same can be said about every kid in the state I went to school with. Nowadays all of my information comes from my EMT training, and one of my friends who's a regular user. Besides, "DARE" focused on cigarettes and alcohol. I don't remember anything about weed, or even any of the "hard" drugs like crack and coke. They were more worried we were gonna be pressured into smoking.

[Syobon]

Justification for what? Throwing people in jail?

Justification for why people shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel of a vehicle while high/smoking. I never said the word "jail", or even made a mention of any sort of punishment.

That's why I asked, you didn't make it clear what you were talking about. And I definitely agree, driving high is asking for disasters.

[Reyo]

I understand that, though to be honest the way you structured your comment I thought I was in for another angry discussion about why pot is the greatest thing ever and that the government is evil for throwing people in jail for smoking a plant. It's not a particularly fun conversation to have, so I was a little hesitant.

[Paper_Pikmin]

Why not just boil the weed in butter to make THC butter and make some brownies with it? That way there is no harm to the lungs.

[Reyo]

It's still a mind altering drug. It gets you drowsy and significantly less serious than normal. It's not as detrimental as alcohol, but still. There's also the lack of hard, scientific documentation on what it does. I mean yeah, everyone and their brother knows what it does, but if research can still tell us everything then we need to go for it.

[Fooflyer]

I got into a conversation with a much older woman who is a particularly well educated feminist. As would be expected, she was quick to to point out social rights issues in our discussions, and when I mentioned some more contemporary hotseats such as the cis/transgender fiasco as well as more subjective matters that relate to our terminology, she analysed what I presented and rather deftly concluded with:
"How long can you spend arguing about this?"
to which I had replied "Months I'm sure, I'm still in debate with people weeks ago"
"But is there any real resolution reached? No."