RICKY WILLIAMS ...MORE TROUBLE

[JVides]

If Cypress Hill can put that quote inside one of their record labels, there has to be some truth to it.

As my tax law professors say: Always quote primary authority.  And if Cypress Hill isn't primary authority...

[Brian Fein]

If Cypress Hill can put that quote inside one of their record labels, there has to be some truth to it.

Oh, how silly of me, Cypress Hill is the foremost authority on everything.  They've never said anything that wasn't true...

[YoFuggedaboutit]

Oh, how silly of me, Cypress Hill is the foremost authority on everything.  They've never said anything that wasn't true...

You know how much of a lawsuit they would have on their hands if they had posted on their record label "In its 5000 years of existence, no one has ever died of marijuana usage" and someone actually did?

[SCFinFan]

Actually, I believe I said marijuana is "more deadly" than alchohol, using comparison.  I'm saying it is more dangerous, and more detrimental than alchohol, not that it kills people in and of itself (just like when I said that alchohol itself does not cause belligerence or stupidity, it only makes it easier). Look:

Therefore, because of the way it is ingested, it is a more deadly substance, and has quicker (and strangely, longer lasting) effects.

(Emphasis mine)

As for impairment rates, well, I'd say their about equal. I've always asked my doctor about this kind of stuff, and he usually treats the two substances as equal in danger. You may not wake up with a hangover, like someone said, but in the case of long term impairment, I'll believe my doctor over someone on a message board.

That said, I can only continue on with the following. Every substance that we ingest (beside necessary ones, like air) we can become dependent on, either psychologically or physically. Therefore we can have that bad meme, or schema of thought, which makes us think we need whatever substance to which we are addicted. Addiction has caused havoc in my life, and I'd be willing to contradict anyone (and sharply at that) who would say that it would have no negative effects. And because things like this can be abused, we can never say that they can be used 'responsibly' really.  Who is to say what is responsible or not? Each to his own, yes? Well, frankly, that is what gets addicts into their addiction in the first place.

[dolfan13]

i hate the whole "these guys are role models crap".... puh leease.

most of these guys are thugs from the geeheettoo. not that that is a bad thing, in fact you could build a pretty kick ass football team off of the streets of carol city (many in the nfl are from that part of town). anyways, anyone really looking to demonstrate these guys as role models to kids is really insane. They are merely entertainers and nothing more.

its unfortunate that some of the nfl rules governing players off field behaior are pretty stupid. That is what they are though and ricky is basically a dumbass. the hypocrisy of the nfl is really starting to become a problem however in this younger generation of atheletes. most of the best players are hardcore thugs, and that is the nature of the sport. so on the field they want those types of players, but off the field they want clean cut wally beaver types to serve as "role models". they can't have it both ways...

[BeefStewert]

You know how much of a lawsuit they would have on their hands if they had posted on their record label "In its 5000 years of existence, no one has ever died of marijuana usage" and someone actually did?

Why would that be a lawsuit?  People make incorrect statements in writng all the time.

[TonyB0D]

weed is only a mental dependency, not a physical one, unlike alcohol.  many doctors have also been indoctrinated with the same propoganda that the rest of society has been...

[SCFinFan]

weed is only a mental dependency, not a physical one, unlike alcohol. many doctors have also been indoctrinated with the same propoganda that the rest of society has been...

Tony,

Not to start anything, but then, what counts as propaganda? Anything that disagrees with you? Please, don't start calling the other side propaganda. That's balogna. It's a weak, name-calling defense that demonstrates a lack of logical reasoning.

Also,

I don't see the point in a doctor saying: "Don't do this, it will hurt you", unless he truly accepts what he's saying as scientifically true.  If a doctor is thinking as a businessman, then won't he want you to come back in? Won't he want you to come to him, pay the co-pay and then prescribe you expensive drugs which have been advertised to him? You bet he would. Everything has a business side, Tony. If he's thinking as a businessman (or, should I say, if he's been indoctrinated by the propaganda of the business aspect of his job?) then he'd want you to come back in. C'mon man, gotta come up with some better logic chopping than what you have above. That shit's weak.

You do make a point about  psychological dependency though. Still you have a choice: take a drug and only get ONE dependency, or don't take one and never have to worry about such things as all. Case closed for me.

[BeefStewert]

weed is only a mental dependency, not a physical one, unlike alcohol.  many doctors have also been indoctrinated with the same propoganda that the rest of society has been...

I may be wrong on this, but I seem to remember that marijuana has considerablly more tar than cigarettes.  While it may not be chemically addicting, it isn't healthy for you.  The tar is a key cause of lung cancer.

[Spider-Dan]

He's right though.  In it's 5000 years of existence, NO ONE has ever died of marijuana use.

By the same token, I could say that no one has ever died of cigarette use.

[YoFuggedaboutit]

By the same token, I could say that no one has ever died of cigarette use.

The Cypress Hill record label clearly states how marijuana originated (in ancient Greece), how it was smoked, and what it was called in those days.  It then goes on to say:

Over 100,000 Americans die each year from lung cancer or emphesyma because of smoking cigarettes

Over 250,000 Americans die each year from drunk driving crashes because of drinking alcohol

But, in its 5000 years of existence, no one has ever died of marijuana. 

[Philly Fin Fan]

The Cypress Hill record label clearly states how marijuana originated (in ancient Greece), how it was smoked, and what it was called in those days.  It then goes on to say:

Over 100,000 Americans die each year from lung cancer or emphesyma because of smoking cigarettes

Over 250,000 Americans die each year from drunk driving crashes because of drinking alcohol

But, in its 5000 years of existence, no one has ever died of marijuana. 

Tommy- u really sound like an idiot sometimes. ( i say that in a friendly way)

[Spider-Dan]

The Cypress Hill record label clearly states how marijuana originated (in ancient Greece), how it was smoked, and what it was called in those days.  It then goes on to say:

Over 100,000 Americans die each year from lung cancer or emphesyma because of smoking cigarettes

And how, exactly, would we track who gets lung cancer or emphesyma because of smoking marijuana?  We already know that marijuana produces carcinogens in an equal or greater amount than tobacco*.

So the most optimistic argument you could make for marijuana is that no one has ever died from smoking it because it's prohibited, which doesn't exactly help the case for legalization.

*edit:  For reference: http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html

Marijuana use also has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens(12, 13). In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke(14). It also produces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form—levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells(15). Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may increase the risk of cancer more than smoking tobacco.

[SCFinFan]

Nice work there Spider-Dan.

[TonyB0D]

^^^^
but you only take a few puffs of marijuana once every while...you cant compare it to the sheer volume that a pack a day smoker can plow through.  and it doesn't have ANY of that extra chemical additive BS like ammonia and what-not that cigarettes have a plethora of

medical studies have shown that because of the very small volume that marijuana smokers inhale, the risk is neglible.  this is another example of skewed statistics