Another debate about "The Reefer".:rolleyes: Seems everywhere you go, some one is debating this very same thing. I smoked pot for a few months and realized it was the biggest waste of time and money on the planet. (At least you can keep video games and play them again!) I also took a good look at my smokin' buddies and also realized that they were going nowhere, and would probably work at Wal-Mart for the rest of their lives. All these life altering realizations at the young age of 21! Here I am two years later, with a wife, a steady job building houses (lots of land to be developed!), and a house that is mine.:D And where are my smokin' buddies now. Dustin, 22, in jail for armed robbery :fistpunch: Heather, 25, two kids (and none of the fathers stayed around):'( And finally, Sean, 23; he still smokes every day, and works at Wal-Mart.:mepimp:
aint that the truth, congrats embrel23.
Zab nearly all that information is far outdated. If you actually look at the ways many of the studies were performed you'll see that they are based on unusual or small pools of subjects and performed within a month of the last smoke. The vast majority of studies find litte to no effects on cognition after 1 month (such as those done by the Lancet and Harvard). The Harvard study stated that "researchers found no irreversible cognitive defects from a lifetime of marijuana consumption". The Lancet reported that "The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health". One study even said that Asprin use is worse, in the long term, than cannabis use. Yes, its bad for the lungs but cigarrettes are nearly as bad. And using a vaporizer can take out close to 100% of the carcinogens. As for effects such as depression, these have never been scientifically proven. Drugs are a form of escapism and so its obvious that many people suffering from depression will turn to drugs. Its a chicken before the egg type of question for this type of disorder. The government pools as much infomration that agress with their theory, whether scientificially sound or not, and presents it to a largely drug-ignorant public. Responsible use (which the vast majority of smokers engage in) breeds few negative effects.
One can also look at the health debate from an entirely different perspective. The buyer has to get weed from an uncontrolled source which means that contaminents such as incesticides may do more damage than the actual weed. If it were legal there would be health standards and smoking paraphernalia, ie bongs, vaporizers, etc. which are gentler on the lungs would be made readily available.
As for the example of embrel's smoking buddies: I know many smokers that have gone no where. But I also know a lot of smokers that are successful. The smokers that go nowhere aren't just smoking weed and these are the type of people that have been f*cked up long before weed.
ok im glad we discussed that and you have many valid points, its nice to have a good convo about marijuana that doesnt end up in, "well dude have you ever had it, then you know dude." i just like being objective and hearing all sides.
Nice to hear. It's good to debate something so controversial w/o resorting to name calling and other immature gestures. I think we solidifed both sides of the argument by stating the presently known dangers of marijuana and their accordance with law. One's stance on the subject varies as marijuana remains a fairly mysterious substance and virtually all Americans have a different perspective on law and the role of the government's policing power.