Is there more evidence needed to show that the War on Pot is entirely stupid than the fact that they're banning a substance solely because its effects are similar to marijuana? I could understand if they were doing it because it was highly addictive or proven to cause cancer or had some other side effect of booze or tobacco. But banning it solely because its high is similar to the high of a banned substance? They're not even going to try to find any other rationale? Pathetic.
The only research the article cites is that the DEA claims it has minor ill effects in mice and an EU study which says that differing brands have different amounts of the active ingredient and they're not sure how many Europeans use it. Well geez, better stamp that out immediately. The article even cites the dangers of ten-year-olds buying the stuff at headshops, as if the only possible way of preventing that is to send people to prison for possessing it. You know, for kids.
My favorite quote is from a Missouri Democrat wanting to ban the stuff who said "This isn't Jerry Garcia's marijuana." Is this an admission that he's had Jerry Garcia's weed? If not, how the hell does he know if it's any different? And does this mean he approves of marijuana, as long as it's Jerry Garcia's? And really, what's the world coming to when anti-drug politicians cite Jerry Garcia's drug use in a positive way? It's like they're not even trying anymore. What's next, Elvis as an example of healthy pill addiction?
More likely, he's just using the same "marijuana is scarier now" meme we keep hearing from people who smoked pot without ill effect, but now want to arrest people for doing what they used to do; using Garcia as a code word to assure everyone that he's still hip. Eventually, someone's going to ask him if it's ok to legalize pot, as long as it's comparable to the pot of the 60's and he will have that man arrested.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
I dunno, that K2 chemical shit sounds pretty nasty, why not just smoke pot? It's better for your health.
Et tu, Mahakal?
So, are you getting that from this article, or are you referring to other things you've heard? Because I don't see anything in the article that suggests there's anything wrong with it.
And the reason it's better than pot is because it's not illegal and you don't fail pee tests; not that I was going to run out and buy the stuff.
It isn't "better" just because it isn't scheduled. You can huff paint if you want a legal way to fuck up youe head.
Cannabis is plainly SAFER, with a four thousand+ year history of human use and not a SINGLE fatality due to overdose. Not one.
And of course I should have written "your head", not "youe head".
The question isn't whether it's better. The question is whether it's worse. Paint, on the other hand, puts holes in your brain, from what I understand. And the only problem the article said was that the high doesn't last as long. Other than that, the research was iffy. So do you actually KNOW that this shit is much worse? Or is that just a guess? I was just wondering...not that I was going to go out and buy any, of course.
As for the single fatality due to pot overdose, there was that one commercial that had the two stoner babysitters getting stoned while the baby drowned in the pool. But I'm not necessarily sure if that was a true story. And was there once a commercial that featured a doctor getting high before surgery, or did I just make that up? Either way, it'd be a cool ad.
FYI: 100% of the people who smoke pot die. Think about it.
K2 is an unknown chemical, frankly, and you have no idea whether it will put holes in your brain, do you? If you want to risk your health and safety with some questionable synthetic street drug, you're not being very smart.
Pot is the safest therapeutically active substance known to man. Period.
JWH-018 seems to be the chemical. Unknown toxicity or safety profile, but feel free to do your own research.
Just to be clear, I had no actual intention of taking this stuff. I just don't like the idea of banning substances or labeling them "nasty" without any research to back it up. It's that sort of attitude that lead them to ban pot in the first place...and KEEP it banned.
Ignorance is never a selling point.
Actually, no -- pot has thousands of years of history as a food, medicine, fiber, and generally most useful plant known to humankind.
And I'm not advocating bans -- I'm saying that synthetic chemicals with no record of proven safety aren't as good for your health as smoking pot.
That's all.
synthetic chemicals with no record of proven safety aren't as good for your health as smoking pot.
Look, I understand what you're trying to say. You're trying to overcome the bias against pot by emphasizing that it's not dangerous and has many good effects. And you're not going to get an argument from me on that. But I've found these sort of sloppy all-or-nothing arguments permeate your thinking far too much.
Because, for all you know, this stuff could cure every form of cancer. It could increase IQ, destroy zits, it might even make Free Jazz listenable. The point is, you don't know. This stuff hasn't really been researched, so we don't know if it's more or less healthy than pot.
And the most you can say is "Pot has a track record and this stuff doesn't, so we'd be better off smoking pot than this unknown chemical until more research is done" And again, you wouldn't get an argument from me about that. But once you start making claims that this stuff is nasty or suggesting that you KNOW pot is more healthy for you, then you're getting sloppy and I just can't have that.
And of course, this isn't just limited to this one issue. I've often found that you make claims about the unknowable and fail to understand why I refuse to accept claims from you that you shouldn't make. And that's why I'm agnostic, and you keep insisting I'm close-minded for not accepting your particular guess on how the universe works. But you're so certain about the unknowable that you refuse to admit you're even guessing.
There's nothing wrong with uncertainty. It's when we pretend to know things we can't know that we get in trouble. Guessing is fine, just as long as we remember they're guesses.
No, really. You should definitely ingest random chemicals because who knows, they might be good for you.
The inventor of K2 agrees with me. But go on being ignorant.
Perhaps some day you'll have your head far enough out of your habitually stoned ass that you'll finally comprehend what I was saying. Idiot.
My point was always that it was stupid to ban a substance without knowing anything about it; as they were only banning it because it's like pot. Huffman's point was that people shouldn't use it because it hasn't been tested and seems to be dangerous. And I don't disagree with that at all. My whole point was that we don't know anything about it, which should preclude people from taking it or banning it.
Meanwhile, you live in a delusional world where I was recommending that people take this mystery drug because it hasn't been tested. Sure, I never ever never made that point, but you're so intent on disagreeing with me that you can't comprehend that. Idiot.
Once again, we seem to be in agreement; yet you imagine a strawman argument for me and ocntinue to insult me, for reasons I don't understand. For someone trying to show that heavy pot use doesn't make people stupid, lazy, and crazy; you sure do a shitty job of it.
Post a Comment