RICKY WILLIAMS ...MORE TROUBLE

[YoFuggedaboutit]

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

I sound like an idiot because I quoted something from a record label?  Why not get that record label and see for yourself?  It was the album with their "Insane in the brain" song. 

[TonyB0D]

what they were referring to was the fact that no one has ever died from an overdose of marijuana.  no one's saying that over time you cant develop cancer from it, but its not possible to overdose on THC.  the amount it would take to kill you would be like 60 pounds or something.

[Philly Fin Fan]

I sound like an idiot because I quoted something from a record label?  Why not get that record label and see for yourself?  It was the album with their "Insane in the brain" song. 

No, you sound like an idiot because you are quoting Cypress Hill as if they are a medical journal.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

I also don't see cigarette smokers inhaling a full lungful and holding it in for 5-10 seconds.

And as far as volume goes, if cigarettes were illegal, do you think we would still have people who smoke 2 packs a day?  Supply is a factor.

and it doesn't have ANY of that extra chemical additive BS like ammonia and what-not that cigarettes have a plethora of

Even without that "extra chemical additive BS," marijuana is still more carcinogenic.  If it were legalized, they'd be adding the same chemicals that they add to tobacco.  No matter how you slice it, if you're going to blame cigarettes for causing deaths, then you would have to do the same for legalized marijuana.

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

From the article I quoted:

"Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke."

That doesn't sound like a "very small volume" to me.

[Dave Gray]

I've found that alchohol does not cause people to be aggressive and problematic, rather, it decreases one's inhibitions and therefore allows people to act on their will, rather than listen to their conscience and higher reasoning/planning functions. In essence, when this part of your brain is shut down, impaired, or stymied, you become a pure animal or a baby. Achohol does not cause it, it merely makes it more likely and more probable.

I have not done any scientific research on the matter, to be fair.  That said, I agree that the alcohol does not CAUSE those things.  People still have free will, however, just from my own experiences, I've seen people drink and get violent MANY, MANY, MANY times.  I've seen people lose control of themselves from alcohol -- pass out to where they are unconscious, etc.  I've also seen many people smoke weed on many different occasions.  The resulting high is not the same.  It is a lethargic mood.  Whether the drug CAUSES or simply ALLOWS these states is inconsequential.  I don't condone Marijuana use as a healthy lifestyle choice, but in comparison to alcohol, it is less damaging to the individual, as well as the society around them, in all cases I've ever seen.

Show me a person why gets high every day until they're 40, and someone who gets drunk every day until they're 40.  -- You may have two losers, but the alkie will be a lot worse off.

I've never seen any scientific study which fingers sugar (which type of sugar, and, furthermore are they complex or simple carbohydrates?) as a main killer in the US.

I'm not really looking at stats, nor do I study the harmful effects of sugar in my free time, but my understanding is this:
An abundance of partially hydroginated corn syrup (SUGAR) is causing an obesity epidemic in this country.  Obesity is a leading contributor to heart disease.  Heart Disease is a leading cause of death in the US.  We can both probably agree that being obese isn't healthy, without having to see studies on the subject.

you've got to think of the mode of ingestion and the consequences therein as well. WIth Alchohol, it is ingested through the stomach, broken down in acids, and finally passed through into the bloodstream via the small intestine, etc. With Mary Jane, you smoke it, and this immediately passes into your respiritory system and your pulmonary system. It immediately affects two of your main organs, instead of just one. Then, I believe, though I have no problem being corrected if anyone knows better, it is immediately passed into the brain from the blood, as the oxygenated cells drop off their payload on the brain. The blood brain barrier, however, often slows the affect of liquid substances on the brain.

I don't know the medical explanation behind it, but I don't really see the difference.  In my experience, the affects of alcohol and weed are comparable in how quickly they impair you.  However, given equal amounts of "fuckedupness", alcohol takes way longer to get you back into your normal state.  Again, I've got no data to support this, other than I've been drunk at night, and woke up drunk.  Weed doesn't stick with you like that.

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

This just isn't true.  I can drink a beer and feel it pretty much halfway through the first sip.  Sidestory -- I took a college class on drugs.  It was one of the best courses I've ever had.  One of things had to do with how long it took to reach your altered state of consiousness.  It turns out that starting to act (be it drinking, smoking, watching TV to get into a zombie state, or a child spinning around looking to get dizzy) often tells your body that "it's time", and you start feeling your high right away.  I don't know how that applies to the convo, but I thought it was pretty cool.

True, the affects are often lethargy, but this is still a terrible effect. Negligence can lead to as much (if not more) bad things than can overt negative actions. And that's just if you only consider the consequences of an action. The morality of an action is not dependant upon its consequences, you know.

Totally.  It's possibly that someone can smoke a bunch of weed, not go to work, and therefore not have money to feed their kids, I guess.  But so can lots of other stuff.  You use the word "morality", and that seems to be a good choice.  I guess the bottom line is that I don't like the government using it's morality (whatever that is) to tell me what I can put into my own body.  I don't think it's their job to babysit us.  If a guy wants to smoke a bunch of weed and do nothing with his life, who am I to say that he shouldn't?

[Gerbils]

I wrote this for MPP, two years ago, when he first was suspended, after the third positive test: 

NFL star Ricky Williams is the victim of a double standard that punishes private, adult use of marijuana while turning a blind eye to flagrant alcohol abuse, the Marijuana Policy Project announced today.

As the sports world rushes to criticize the former Miami Dolphins star running back for retiring from professional football after testing positive three times for marijuana use, MPP instead points to Williams as the latest in a decades-long list of victims of marijuana prohibition.

"Marijuana is not what is ending Williams' career. Rather, it is marijuana prohibition that has harmed Williams. Our society and the NFL tolerate public alcohol use and even abuse, while absurdly prohibiting the private adult use of marijuana," noted MPP Executive Director Rob Kampia. "Marijuana prohibition destroys lives and careers and does little to reduce abuse, particularly among young people. Sadly, there will be many more Ricky Williamses until Congress takes action to end our nation's war on marijuana users."

Williams is reported to use marijuana to cope with his debilitating social anxiety disorder, one of the causes of his sometimes-erratic behavior. Williams had tried using Paxil to treat his disorder, even acting as the drug's spokesperson for a time, but had to discontinue treatment after experiencing undesirable side effects.

According to the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 40.8 percent of Americans aged 26 and older have used marijuana at least once in their lifetimes.

-----------

Simply:

Science, statistics and anectdotal evidence (as Dave lays it out) clearly concludes that marijuana use is less harmful than the use of alcohol and tobacco.  No one has died as a result of using marijuana -- truly, the same cannot be said for the other two.  In Portugal, the cops actively promote soccer fans to use marijuana, because the drunken fans get too rowdy.  Why, then, should we not care about a player (or laud them, even) who "winds down" with a martini, and suspend that player that "winds down" with a joint?

For some statistics:

http://www.mpp.org/common_q.html

[Brian Fein]

Why, then, should we not care about a player (or laud them, even) who "winds down" with a martini, and suspend that player that "winds down" with a joint?

Quite simply - BECAUSE ITS AGAINST HIS EMPLOYERS POLICY OF CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT!

This is not an issue of "should pot be legal?" or "are the NFL's policies justified?"  Until marijuana is legal in all 50 states, the NFL will continue to require that all of its employees rafrain from its use.

[YoFuggedaboutit]

No, you sound like an idiot because you are quoting Cypress Hill as if they are a medical journal.

They're not a medical journal.  If one of their members said something like that, that's one thing.  But they actually printed it on their record label....a record label that was sold to a mass audience.  There's gotta be some truth to it. 

[SCFinFan]

Dave, that was an excellent reply. Allow me to attempt one myself now.

Show me a person why gets high every day until they're 40, and someone who gets drunk every day until they're 40.  -- You may have two losers, but the alkie will be a lot worse off.

I disagree, based on some of Spider-Dan's logic. As it is right now, because of supply and the laws based upon supply, it is impossible to become as dedicated a smoker as it is to become a drinker. AS it is, pot is illegal. So, I doubt that people can smoke as much as they can drink. Furthermore, you have to think, what does alchohol affect vs. smoking? Well, like i said, smoke goes directly to your lungs-heart. Drinking goes to your liver. You liver is important, but, your lungs and heart are probably the most important part of your body (which is why they are so adequately protected, evolutionarily, by your ribs). So, biologically, I doubt your conclusion here. One the other hand, I also doubt your logic if you mean "socially" they are better off. With beer, unless your the odd man that drinks alone, drinking is a social thing. So, though it may cause a man to get violent, it will at least keep him in contact with the outside world. Smoking need not be this way, and, when one thinks about it, it would make sense. The more lethargic and relaxed it makes you, the less you really care about who's there and who's not. Eventually, you will find yourself all alone, dependent upon your substance, and that's all.

I'm not really looking at stats, nor do I study the harmful effects of sugar in my free time, but my understanding is this:
An abundance of partially hydroginated corn syrup (SUGAR) is causing an obesity epidemic in this country.  Obesity is a leading contributor to heart disease.  Heart Disease is a leading cause of death in the US.  We can both probably agree that being obese isn't healthy, without having to see studies on the subject.

Agreed, totally. I unsure of what you meant by "sugar".

I don't know the medical explanation behind it, but I don't really see the difference.  In my experience, the affects of alcohol and weed are comparable in how quickly they impair you.  However, given equal amounts of "fuckedupness", alcohol takes way longer to get you back into your normal state.  Again, I've got no data to support this, other than I've been drunk at night, and woke up drunk.  Weed doesn't stick with you like that.

No, it doesn't, but that's based on how much you digest as well. A joint's not as much substance as a long-neck. And yet, as you say, they affect(impair) you at about an equal rate. Try smoking and equal amount of substance to what you would drink, and then you'll see what I mean.

Totally.  It's possibly that someone can smoke a bunch of weed, not go to work, and therefore not have money to feed their kids, I guess.  But so can lots of other stuff.  You use the word "morality", and that seems to be a good choice.  I guess the bottom line is that I don't like the government using it's morality (whatever that is) to tell me what I can put into my own body.  I don't think it's their job to babysit us.  If a guy wants to smoke a bunch of weed and do nothing with his life, who am I to say that he shouldn't?

Ahh a government/morality/ethics question. Much more my forte than science. You say you don't like their "morality" placed upon us? Well, I would argue that yes, indeed you do. It is that same morality that allows you freedom of speech, safe and unfettered travel from state to state, capitalism in business, etc. What your gripe appears to be, is that you don't like them interfering with things that you would deem "personal choice" right? To me, that sounds like the "right to privacy" and is always a sticking point. How much should the government stick it's nose into the private lives of its citizens? How do they legislate it once they get there (if they do)?

The trouble with saying "it's my personal choice" is that it is too widely applicable and leads to too much of a slippery slope. When you start relegating stuff to the 'private action' sphere, what you're doing is promoting the value of 'freedom' above every other value. And that just can't work. Laws must limit freedom for the good of society. The absolute application of freedom is anarchy, and I don't think you want that. "But I don't want to go that far," you say. Indeed, I don't think many people want to. But I would say this, the government does have a right to stick its nose in where "commerce" is in question, and in this case, commerce is definitely in question. When you purchase a substance which you will ingest, that's commerce, and that is regulated by the US. The government has every right to tell you "yes" or "no" to it. It's just one of the thigns it can do. Its a similar rule to the one that allows the government to end a strike when national communications are threatened.

[TonyB0D]

man, spyder dan and SCFinFan youse guys logic is so weird, you guys are arguing in circles, and bringin up irellevant points to try and make a point that doesnt exists.  bottom line = you will be eating crow in 10 years, not us.

[YoFuggedaboutit]

Ahh a government/morality/ethics question. Much more my forte than science. You say you don't like their "morality" placed upon us? Well, I would argue that yes, indeed you do. It is that same morality that allows you freedom of speech, safe and unfettered travel from state to state, capitalism in business, etc. What your gripe appears to be, is that you don't like them interfering with things that you would deem "personal choice" right? To me, that sounds like the "right to privacy" and is always a sticking point. How much should the government stick it's nose into the private lives of its citizens? How do they legislate it once they get there (if they do)?

The trouble with saying "it's my personal choice" is that it is too widely applicable and leads to too much of a slippery slope. When you start relegating stuff to the 'private action' sphere, what you're doing is promoting the value of 'freedom' above every other value. And that just can't work. Laws must limit freedom for the good of society. The absolute application of freedom is anarchy, and I don't think you want that. "But I don't want to go that far," you say. Indeed, I don't think many people want to. But I would say this, the government does have a right to stick its nose in where "commerce" is in question, and in this case, commerce is definitely in question. When you purchase a substance which you will ingest, that's commerce, and that is regulated by the US. The government has every right to tell you "yes" or "no" to it. It's just one of the thigns it can do. Its a similar rule to the one that allows the government to end a strike when national communications are threatened.

You're right about that.  The laws are meant to protect people.  Everyone has the freedom the U.S. offers, but those laws are in place to keep you from infringing on other people's freedoms.  That's the whole concept behind democracy. 

[YoFuggedaboutit]

Man this is crazy.  I've just noticed this thread has the same amount of posts as the TDMMC T-shirts thread, but it's only been open for FIVE DAYS!!!!

People have gone wild here!!!!

[Philly Fin Fan]

They're not a medical journal.  If one of their members said something like that, that's one thing.  But they actually printed it on their record label....a record label that was sold to a mass audience.  There's gotta be some truth to it. 

OK. See, here is why you are an idiot. You feel that because they printed it on a record label, it has to be solid gold, gospel truth. An artist can print whatever the hell they want on a record label.

[Brian Fein]

Man this is crazy. I've just noticed this thread has the same amount of posts as the TDMMC T-shirts thread, but it's only been open for FIVE DAYS!!!!

People have gone wild here!!!!

This thread has quickly climbed to #5 all-time on the TDMMC most popular threads list...

[Phishfan]

No, it doesn't, but that's based on how much you digest as well. A joint's not as much substance as a long-neck. And yet, as you say, they affect(impair) you at about an equal rate. Try smoking and equal amount of substance to what you would drink, and then you'll see what I mean.

 

How can you even begin to compare an equal amount of two different substances? How do you know a joint would be less substance than a longneck?