ignorance

[GreenGaucho]

Actually, your mother is probably right. The only things that are unrelated to weed are the parts about cliffs and beating your wife. First of all, drug is defined as any substance, organic or chemical, which alters one's state of mind. Does marijuana do this? yes. Second, THC is much more concentrated than it used to be and many people can get addicted because they need a constant supply of of THC after smoking for so long. If you disagree, then I'd like you to try to stop smoking for a year. I guarantee you'll be irritable and have withdrawal symptoms at first, I've seen it happen. Third, of course there's probably some guy who wasn't able to hold a job because of weed. Bottom line is, it can make you lazy if you don't even attempt to be active and just smoke too much. Sure as hell doesn't sound unreasonable to me. And also, yes I know driving under the influence is negligble, but it truly does make people's reaction times slower. You can't argue that you'd be just as good a driver if you were high because it's simply not true. Sure I agree that alcohol is a far worse substance, but that has nothing to do with anything. People need to stop trying to justify their problems.

[Stedric]

Actually, your mother is probably right. The only things that are unrelated to weed are the parts about cliffs and beating your wife. First of all, drug is defined as any substance, organic or chemical, which alters one's state of mind. Does marijuana do this? yes. Second, THC is much more concentrated than it used to be and many people can get addicted because they need a constant supply of of THC after smoking for so long. If you disagree, then I'd like you to try to stop smoking for a year. I guarantee you'll be irritable and have withdrawal symptoms at first, I've seen it happen. Third, of course there's probably some guy who wasn't able to hold a job because of weed. Bottom line is, it can make you lazy if you don't even attempt to be active and just smoke too much. Sure as hell doesn't sound unreasonable to me. And also, yes I know driving under the influence is negligble, but it truly does make people's reaction times slower. You can't argue that you'd be just as good a driver if you were high because it's simply not true. Sure I agree that alcohol is a far worse substance, but that has nothing to do with anything. People need to stop trying to justify their problems.

Ok, no. Yes weed is a drug (I personally think it just barely qualifies as such). Yes it is more concentrated than it used to be, but so what? Yes it can be addictive but its not even in the same ballpark as other types of addictions. Addiction starts with the person, not with the drug.

Hypothetical, you took an alcoholic, or a stoner and removed all their contact with the drug. Do you think that person is going to say, "Oh, well, I don't have any drugs to do...might as well start leading a productive life!". Or maybe, just maybe, they'll find some other addictive habit to waste their lives with.

Out of all the addictions in the world, the so called "marijuana addiction" affects you the least and is easiest to break. If I had to be addicted to something, I think weed would be a lot better than some other things.

[Nullific]

Second, THC is much more concentrated than it used to be and many people can get addicted because they need a constant supply of of THC after smoking for so long. If you disagree, then I'd like you to try to stop smoking for a year.

The claim that marijuana today is more potent than 30 years ago is false in the first place. Even if it were true all that would mean is that you don't need to smoke as much to get high. They have been using this 'more potent' bullshit since the 1980s, here we are 20 years later and people are still smoking mids and brickweed.
http://www.mapinc.org/newsnc/v05/n475/a07.html
http://www.reason.com/sullum/081304.shtml

[GreenGaucho]

What in the hell does that post have to do with anything? Of course it's not as addicting as a ton of other drugs, I already said that. The point of my post was that his mom was for the most part correct in the things she was saying and so maybe it's him that's ignorant, not his mother... The fact is marijuana can be bad for you, and for most people it is. The exception to this is people with glaucoma and other medical problems. And I guarantee the majority of the people on these forums aren't using mj for medicinal reasons.

[4everstoned1212]

Its funny that GreenGaucho advises people to quit rationalizing their problems and the very next response is another rationalization-its not good for you just because its better than somethings. you all need to admit that it is a bad thing, its just whether the pros and cons work for your personal choices-just because you do it doesnt mean its right.
and as far as weed "barely qualifying" as a drug-its actually one of the more powerful drugs out there-thats why so many people do it

[GreenGaucho]

The claim that marijuana today is more potent than 30 years ago is false in the first place. Even if it were true all that would mean is that you don't need to smoke as much to get high. They have been using this 'more potent' bullshit since the 1980s, here we are 20 years later and people are still smoking mids and brickweed.
http://www.mapinc.org/newsnc/v05/n475/a07.html
http://www.reason.com/sullum/081304.shtml

LoL. I read both those sites and neither still made any sense. They are just stating the fact that there wasn't a HUGE degree in change of potency as claimed by the media, but there was a "modest rise". You can't argue with the fact that the science behind breeding and the genetics of marijuana hasn't evolved since nearly thirty years ago, that's just rediculous. Sure people were experimenting with genetics of mj 30+ years ago, but you sure as hell didn't see the super breeds you do today. Honestly, you gotta be in self-denial to believe that shit...BTW, it doesn't have anything with the addiction which I was getting at in the first place.

[Nullific]

Hell no I wont admit cannabis is a bad thing.

They still have yet to prove it causes any life threatening damage to the lungs.
We wouldnt know if there was really anything wrong with the herb, because the government put a hold on research having to do with marijuana and requested all colleges and universities destroy any past reports on it.
Hmmmm why would they take an illegal substance that they deem as dangerous and prevent, even destroy evidence that it is what they say. Maybe it was because they found none.
Here is what they found instead: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=9257

[GreenGaucho]

Haha. You're so dense I can't help but chuckle to myself. You clearly have some sort of dellusional mistrust of the government but I can somewhat understand that. "They still have yet to prove it causes any life threatening damage to the lungs." Come on buddy, you can do better than that. Were lungs intended to inhale smoke or pure O2? Do tar-like substances and a bunch of other shit build up in your lungs over time? It doesn't take rocket science, just ask the girl who wrote the topic "Smoker's Cough" up in the General forum. This is one reason why I'm such a big advocate for things like vaporizers. There's a reason you cough, when you inhale smoke. It's the body's natural instinct when it's trying to get rid of something bad in the lungs. Oh an nice job showing me an article that says MJ may be helpful medicinally for some people. Hey where have I said that before? Maybe my first post... Jesus, it's hard trying to argue with people who don't know what they're talking about.

[bigdaddy420]

*fires up a joint, takes puff and passes to green gaucho* here smoke this man, it'll make you feel better.

[Darkneon420]

Thanks man. I tried to tell her, i did tell her i proved her wrong on everything she said and just gave me that sarcastic "hmmm, you have all the answers" there was no piont in trying to talk to her anymore

I undertand man, some parents theres just no point in trying. at least shes not stoping you right?