BF2S Forums For my fellow pot smokers

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

No, I wouldn't smoke it.. but I would assume that it would be more accessible and more people would smoke it.  And I didn't mean to imply that everyone would smoke it...

Painkillers are available easily and you don't see a mass amount of people getting high off of them.

Since a lot of people can't use prescription drugs responsibly, should we ban those too?

Are we talking advil? Tylenol?

You can't get morphine at your local supermarket next to the cough syrup...

Either works.

And no you can't, but speaking of which, cough syrup is just as easily manipulated to be used as a drug as morphine is.

Well in that case, you won't get a high off of advil or tylenol... just liver/kidney damage depending on how much you take and how often... and comparing cough syrup to morphine is apples and oranges.  And KJ, you can't drive drunk without alcohol.

EDIT: Whoa, whoa, whoa.. you honestly think that you could find a shred of sanity in legalizing heroine, cocaine or meth?! Jesus...

Last edited by CommieChipmunk (2008-02-13 22:24:19)

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

People will hurt people regardless of if they are on drugs or not.  That argument is fairly shallow.

Would people drive drunk without alcohol?

Would people drive drunk without cars?

They couldn't. But my point was less people would hurt other peope if there were no mind altering drugs like alcohol.

Ollie wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

EDIT: Whoa, whoa, whoa.. you honestly think that you could find a shred of sanity in legalizing heroine, cocaine or meth?! Jesus...

Well why not? Because everyone from 4 year old kiddies to your grandma would become junkies? Get real.

I'm not saying that everyone would become a junkie.... but anyone who tried it probably would.  Heroine, cocaine, meth... they're all incredibly addictive drugs that ruin you physically, mentally, emotionally, financially.. socially.. there is no plus side; except the minute of euphoria in the never ending quest to regain normality..

Funny how college psychology classes that teach you exactly how addition to cocaine or heroine works... and how once you do cocaine, you will never experience that same euphoric high again (to the same degree) and spend the rest of your life chasing it... get thrown out the window by the all knowing internets.

You cannot recreationally (is that a word?) use hard drugs.  It simply doesn't work.

Ollie wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Would people drive drunk without cars?

They couldn't. But my point was less people would hurt other peope if there were no mind altering drugs like alcohol.

...and by the same reasoning less people would be hurt if nobody drove cars, flew planes or swam in the ocean. I mean come on, you can't really be falling back on this silly argument???

I'm not falling back. You're not thinking. Any reduction in personal harm is a good thing. A substantial number of injuring car accidents are caused by alcohol. They wouldn't happen if people weren't drunk. Very simple, really.

Ollie wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Funny how college psychology classes that teach you exactly how addition to cocaine or heroine works... and how once you do cocaine, you will never experience that same euphoric high again (to the same degree) and spend the rest of your life chasing it... get thrown out the window by the all knowing internets.

You cannot recreationally (is that a word?) use hard drugs.  It simply doesn't work.

I beg to differ. Personal experience > whatever you learn in your silly classes.

How long have you used "hard drugs"?

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-02-13 23:01:08)

nukchebi0 wrote:

Ollie wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

They couldn't. But my point was less people would hurt other peope if there were no mind altering drugs like alcohol.

...and by the same reasoning less people would be hurt if nobody drove cars, flew planes or swam in the ocean. I mean come on, you can't really be falling back on this silly argument???

I'm not falling back. You're not thinking. Any reduction in personal harm is a good thing. A substantial number of injuring car accidents are caused by alcohol. They wouldn't happen if people weren't drunk. Very simple, really.

...and they wouldn't happen if people didn't drive! Your arguement is stupid...

nukchebi0 wrote:

Ollie wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

They couldn't. But my point was less people would hurt other peope if there were no mind altering drugs like alcohol.

...and by the same reasoning less people would be hurt if nobody drove cars, flew planes or swam in the ocean. I mean come on, you can't really be falling back on this silly argument???

I'm not falling back. You're not thinking. Any reduction in personal harm is a good thing. A substantial number of injuring car accidents are caused by alcohol. They wouldn't happen if people weren't drunk. Very simple, really.

And the same applies to if they didn't drive.  It's the same argument.  Taking anything that can be harmful out of society will reduce the harm it causes - DUH!

You cannot recreationally (is that a word?) use hard drugs.  It simply doesn't work.

nukchebi0 wrote:

How long have you used "hard drugs"?

Long enough.  5-10 years.

However, I have battled addiction before as a result.

Here is why this argument will never go anywhere - you (specifically nuk and commie) do not approve of drug use for whatever reason.  You seem to look down on people that do - whatever.  But that belief is affecting your ability to debate the issue and causing you to fall back on weak arguments (and sound like idiots because you are ignorant to the subject matter).

nukchebi0 wrote:

How complicated is this? People need to drive, that is an established fact. Our modern economy would cease to function without cars. We can't eliminate cars. We can, however, eliminate idiots who drive in them drunk. Statistics show that a percentage of car accidents occur because people are drunk while they were driving. If they weren't drunk, the accidents would never happen. Having alcohol in the society will guarantee drunk drivers, because irresponsible people are a constant in any society. If we removed the alcohol, there would be less drunk drivers and less painful injuries.

Stop trying to refute it with a tangential fact.

I wonder how many people carry on without driving?  Ever been to NYC?

I would love to hear a rational argument instead of comparing alcohol use to pot use.  The fact of the matter is, there really isn't one.  All you can do is cite ambiguous and unclear medical research, which actually points to no long term negative effects (as of yet).  Quote research that shows that pot could be a trigger for dementia in people with predisposed mental conditions.

You are morally against it, fine.  Go preach somewhere else.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-02-13 23:15:06)

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Ollie wrote:

...and by the same reasoning less people would be hurt if nobody drove cars, flew planes or swam in the ocean. I mean come on, you can't really be falling back on this silly argument???

I'm not falling back. You're not thinking. Any reduction in personal harm is a good thing. A substantial number of injuring car accidents are caused by alcohol. They wouldn't happen if people weren't drunk. Very simple, really.

And the same applies to if they didn't drive.  It's the same argument.  Taking anything that can be harmful out of society will reduce the harm it causes - DUH!

Obviously...

This is really going nowhere, since we are thinking along different lines. I vote to drop it.

You cannot recreationally (is that a word?) use hard drugs.  It simply doesn't work.

nukchebi0 wrote:

How long have you used "hard drugs"?

Long enough.  5-10 years.

However, I have battled addiction before as a result.

Here is why this argument will never go anywhere - you (specifically nuk and commie) do not approve of drug use for whatever reason.  You seem to look down on people that do - whatever.  But that belief is affecting your ability to debate the issue and causing you to fall back on weak arguments (and sound like idiots because you are ignorant to the subject matter).

So what Commie said about the addictive nature of hard drugs was true?

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-02-13 23:13:31)

Drugs are addictive - so is any activity that stimulates positive chemical response.  It is up to the person engaging in the activity to understand the power and allure of addiction.  Some people immediately understand.  Some people don't.  A real solution would be to implement addiction learning classes into school curriculum (not a week of drug-education in health class).

I wonder how many people carry on without driving?  Ever been to NYC?

That's why their streets are so empty there.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

I wonder how many people carry on without driving?  Ever been to NYC?

That's why their streets are so empty there.

Sidewalks too.

jails arent.

nukchebi0 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

That's why their streets are so empty there.

Sidewalks too.

So we've established that people walk around NYC. People walk around any city.

Anytime you want to debate using facts and logic instead of emotion I'm ready.