Jump to content

how many asexuals smoke weed?


jk4eyes

do you smoke weed?  

1 member has voted

  1. 1.

    • yes
      28
    • no
      195
    • well...sorta
      22

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

I said yes, although for the past 5 years, I haven't done weed more than about once a year...

It's pretty relaxing, and unlike with alcohol, I don't wake up the next morning feeling dreadful.

And I did 'shrooms once (which was kind of fun, if somewhat scary).

And I drink relatively regularly, but well, I'm British, and I'm in Belgium, so you can take that as a given. :)

Nothing stronger though.

(liberal Holland and more stringent Britain, for instance, have similar rates of cannabis use, both among the highest in Europe, while some European nations with stricter regulation - if I remember correctly Belgium might be an example - have lower rates and the lowest rate of all is in Switzerland, another country with liberal drug laws).

No, Belgium's also got pretty liberal laws, at least for cannabis. It's not like Amsterdam with its coffee-shops, but possession of a small quantity is allowed.

Not Belgium, then - I wasn't sure which was why I qualified it. Certainly there are European nations with strict laws that do exhibit low abuse rates, though - there was a BBC News article a few years ago running down the statistics for the Western European countries, which was where I got the sense that there was no obvious correlation between drug laws and rates of drug use.

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ew ew ew ew ew ew ew ew ew ew

*vomits*

. . . EW!

Drugs and alcohol are even worse than sex! They do horrible things to your body and I don't know why anyone would ever want to consume them. I certainly don't.

Now, I don't do drugs myself, but I can certainly see how some people would want to and knee-jerk reactions like this annoy me. Have you done ANY sort of research at all into the topic? It IS possible to use drugs responsibly and without any adverse effects to one's body. Weed is essentially a harmless drug, etc etc.

I have to say that comments like this irk me, since the "cannabis is harmless" attitude seems the antithesis of responsible use of a chemical implicated in lung cancer, liver failure, heart disease, depression, schizophrenia and possible short-term memory loss (this is still disputed) - how can one 'responsibly' use something without having informed themselves of the latest research into its effects? A couple of years ago, based largely on the strength of cancer-causing chemicals and tar accumulation from cannabis smoking, the British Medical Association estimated that up to 20,000 deaths a year in the UK might be attributable to cannabis, with lung cancer often setting in earlier than for tobacco (in the 40s in some cases). Of course the situation is complicated by the absence of medical histories charting cannabis use and the confounding factor that most cannabis users also smoke cigarettes, but it's clear that the drug is far from harmless to individuals using it.

What really gets on my nerves, though, are the people who claim "it's not harming anyone else" - take drugs if you must, but don't be hypocritical enough to blind yourself to the effects you're having on others, both the emotional stresses placed on family and friends (the stock line "how is it affecting you?" in response to criticism has always struck me as breathtakingly selfish - the implicit assumption being that one should only care about things that directly affect them and not be concerned for the wellbeing of those they care about) and the injustices that come from funding the drug barons - the extortion and exploitation of peasant farmers, the funding the drugs trade provides for arms and wildlife smuggling, the support it provides for tyrannical regimes (before their fall, the Taleban were the world's major cannabis as well as opium producers), the murders, gang warfare and brutalisation of debtors... Not to mention the social implications of smoked drugs, especially as evidence of harm caused by passive tobacco smoking continues to mount - it's hard to imagine that passive smoking from tar-heavy cannabis is any more benign.

*Rant mode off* Ahem, sorry about rambling on there. Essentially what annoys me about drug abuse isn't so much the drugs - although for the above reasons I disapprove of drug use on ethical grounds - but the selfish, hypocritical attitudes associated with some abusers I've known. I'm not in the habit of generalising - as I mentioned earlier I have no problem with people who abuse drugs as an aggregate - but those particular personality traits, be they from drug users or anyone else, are the ones that really irk me.

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites
it seems intuitively plausible that the more intelligent someone is, the more they would crave depth in their entertainment, something that would give them a sense of achievement or fulfilment rather than an empty chemical high.

maybe if you didn't see as a "chemical high" it would help. i consider it an altered state of mind, just like a regular alcohol consumer (constantly tipsy) would consider soberness an altered state.

Well, I'd class drunkenness as a chemical high as well (and I doubt *constantly* tipsy is a good description of the average alcohol drinker), but whatever the semantics it makes little difference to the essential point - what's wrong with one's state of mind that one feels the need to alter it?

the way i see it, intelligent people do it to experience things differently and to understand them in a way they cant when they're sober. it's just intellectual curiosity.

And that argument might work the first time - it doesn't hold for regular abuse, and if you're comparing it with alcohol it strains credibility to suppose that people get drunk out of intellectual curiosity (at least more than once - I admitted earlier in this thread that I once tried it for that very reason). I think that intelligent people would be more inclined to look at the world from different perspectives without artificial aids to their imagination.

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, there's a difference between drug abuse and drug use. I guess that yes, drug abuse is usually related to other kind of problems... somebody who spends their life stoned might have something wrong.

On the other hand, people who use drugs once in a while can perfectly do it for fun. I personally love how weed "tastes" when I smoke it, and I don't think my "high" times are the best ones in my life or anything, and I certainly can have fun without it. But I like it, and I like that I can stop thinking compulsively for a couple hours once in a while. Intelligent people have other ways to have fun? of course! I've had greater times reading or listening to music! and that doesn't mean I don't enjoy smoking some weed with my friends! I might be weird, but I believe I usually think way too much, so I definitely enjoy a mindless time once in a while, it's not a crime.

But sometimes I just want to laugh, say stupid things with my friends without being selfconscious all the time, enjoy facing the world with messed up senses... Once or twice I was so paranoid about something that I just simply smoked to be able to go to sleep, and I admit to have it smoked once or twice with the same intent because my body hurt so badly.

I'm perfectly aware of the danger that implies resorting to drugs as a way of forgetting about my problems, so I don't use them that way. I might have it done twice, so what? My problems were the same the next day and I didn't smoke again, but at least I had rested enough to see them with a different mind, which had benefited a good day's sleep for the first time in days. I don't feel guilty about that. I'm really cautious about it because I know that the moment I start using them carelessly I might not want to come back to reality, so I keep myself in control. I don't think I'm doing a bad job of it, considering weed hasn't even crossed my mind this summer.

About the "it's not harming anyone else", it's not , sorry to disappoint you. But in my case, what I do isn't a problem for my friends or family because they trust me enough to know I'm responsible with it, and I'm not funding any drug barons or anything like that either. All my weed comes for free from on of my dad ex-coworkers, who grows it for himself and gives a friend and me some because he doesn't smoke it all.

Of course this comes from somebody who smokes weed, but doesn't abuse it. I know there are a lot of cases when that's different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote Joan Wilder, "Sure. I went to college. . ."

I have tried ... a number of things, let's say. Nothing too terribly dangerous, I would wager. Nothing that would require, say, needles or specialized equpment. But none of it really did anything ... well, either to or for me, to be perfectly honest. And, hell, if I am going to do something for which I could lose my liberty, it better have a pretty damned pronounced effect. I will not risk jail for a "Meh" experience. So I don't.

So my vote is: Well...sorta.

Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all' date=' there's a difference between drug abuse and drug use. I guess that yes, drug abuse is usually related to other kind of problems... somebody who spends their life stoned might have something wrong.[/quote']

Very true, but there is also a less commonly recognised difference between 'drug abuse' and 'drug addiction' - "someone who spends their life stoned" is an addict, but not all drug abusers are addicts. To my, those who use drugs for the taste (such as people who drink alcohol for the taste of the alcohol) is a drug user; someone who takes them for the chemical rush is an abuser, as there's no fundamental difference between what they're doing and what the addict is doing, merely a difference in quantity.

On the other hand, people who use drugs once in a while can perfectly do it for fun.

Yet what does the 'fun' come from? It's the same chemical process that's involved in enjoyment of other activities, save that the activity itself is missing - there's no achievement, fulfilment or satisfaction, and nothing that lasts once the chemical's worn off. What I don't understand is what prompts people to take a drug to gain those effects rather than doing something they can actually enjoy for its own sake, and the only explanations that come to mind are ones that show drug abuse in a bad light or highlight potential problems - laziness, succumbing to peer pressure etc. 70%+ of the population gets through life perfectly happily and fully capable of enjoying themselves without using drugs as part of that enjoyment; I'm trying to understand what draws the remaining 30% to something that amounts to sticking insecticides in their mouth and setting fire to them.

None of the explanations mooted here satisfies me that the same results can't be achieved with pretty much any other activity, with the difference that the effects aren't normally as fleeting and other activities are generally wholly non-toxic.

Looking at it objectively, I realise I'm working from the preconception that drugs are a sort of 'second-best' option rather than a desirable end in themselves, but given the ultimately pointless nature of the activity I find it hard to see them in any other way. I wouldn't ask someone why they enjoy, say, cars or sport (to take examples which are foreign to me) as opposed to reading, exploring or whatever, but at least in those cases I can appreciate that there is something there to produce enjoyment, be it particular design characteristics of a vehicle or the satisfaction of watching a game well-played or a favoured team winning (or indeed participating in such a game or team and honing one's skills).

There's nothing intellectual about these activities, but they do seem to be *about* something. I can understand liking drugs for the taste, but from what I understand the taste isn't the principal reason most users take them, it's just incidental, just as someone drinking beer to get drunk might like the taste, but that isn't why they decided to get drunk. I suppose I study frogs, for example, because I like studying frogs, not because I want to feel good and frogging is a means to achieve it. Where I struggle to regard drugs as equivalent is that they appear to be about getting the reward for an enjoyable activity without actually doing anything enjoyable, which I find baffling - it's entirely about the end without any regard to the means.

But sometimes I just want to laugh, say stupid things with my friends without being selfconscious all the time, enjoy facing the world with messed up senses...

This implies a difficulty in relaxing without the use of stimulants. It strikes me that the explanations for the appeal of drug use mooted here - to become more sociable, to see the world in 'altered states', to avoid being self-conscious - are all about manipulating mood, every bit as much as attempts to use them to stave off depression; what is that if not a form of self-medication? They're used as an aid to achieve something one can't otherwise do, not because they're enjoyable in and of themselves.

Once or twice I was so paranoid about something that I just simply smoked to be able to go to sleep, and I admit to have it smoked once or twice with the same intent because my body hurt so badly.

In the UK at least, they have finally got round to developing cannabis-derived painkillers - not sure if they're available on prescription or not yet. It's bizarre that it's taken so long, but it's a good deal healthier and more effective than smoking something that contains variable, unpurified amounts of the painkilling chemicals. That's wholly understandable but it's only a lapse in modern medicine that has made it necessary to smoke cannabis for medicinal purposes and has no bearing on its recreational use.

I'm perfectly aware of the danger that implies resorting to drugs as a way of forgetting about my problems, so I don't use them that way. I might have it done twice, so what? My problems were the same the next day and I didn't smoke again, but at least I had rested enough to see them with a different mind, which had benefited a good day's sleep for the first time in days. I don't feel guilty about that. I'm really cautious about it because I know that the moment I start using them carelessly I might not want to come back to reality, so I keep myself in control. I don't think I'm doing a bad job of it, considering weed hasn't even crossed my mind this summer.

Then you have a lot more self-control than many, if not most, or perhaps the problems were less severe. How many people do you suppose "just" take the stuff twice to make their problems go away for a night and find that so relaxing they can't help but do it again ... and again ... and ...?

About the "it's not harming anyone else", it's not , sorry to disappoint you. But in my case, what I do isn't a problem for my friends or family because they trust me enough to know I'm responsible with it, and I'm not funding any drug barons or anything like that either. All my weed comes for free from on of my dad ex-coworkers, who grows it for himself and gives a friend and me some because he doesn't smoke it all.

Well, when I got to the point of rebutting that particular argument it was as a general point rather than in response to your situation. To take the example that affected me most severely, I take it you wouldn't deny that someone suffering from seemingly severe manic depression (a condition that the drug is known to exacerbate), who gave every sign of being both complacent about the effects of cannabis and unwilling to research the matter and who gave every sign of wrestling with some form of sexual identity problem, is probably not being responsible in resorting to cannabis use, and that a certain level of concern among his friends is justified? In your specific case you could be right that you aren't harming anyone, but as the bland general statement I've heard too often, "cannabis doesn't harm anyone" is patently false, and my problem lies with the people who have the audacity to make that claim while being happy to source the stuff from wherever is cheapest and most convenient and without regard to any distress they cause to others.

Of course this comes from somebody who smokes weed, but doesn't abuse it. I know there are a lot of cases when that's different.

And what of those cases? After all those are, essentially, the ones that interest me; they represent the drugs problem it's hard to deny is a real social phenomenon, and it's their psychology and welfare that needs to be considered when giving the issue any serious thought.

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never attempted to smoke anything, and have no desire to. But I suppose there are far worse things people might do besides drugs, and I'm not going to pass judgement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That does it!!

I'm never touching marijuana, hash, LSD, cocaine, mescaline, amyls, uppers, downers, ether, Valium, or Budweiser EVER again! 8)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Very true, but there is also a less commonly recognised difference between 'drug abuse' and 'drug addiction' - "someone who spends their life stoned" is an addict, but not all drug abusers are addicts. To my, those who use drugs for the taste (such as people who drink alcohol for the taste of the alcohol) is a drug user; someone who takes them for the chemical rush is an abuser, as there's no fundamental difference between what they're doing and what the addict is doing, merely a difference in quantity.

I don't agree there. In my opinion liking the taste or the chemical rush doesn't make a difference... I don't care if somebody gets drunk because they like how wine tastes or because they like to be drunk, it's the quantity or the finality what matters... in this case you can like the chemical rush to have fun, and that doesn't constitute abuse in my mind, if you're doing for other kind of reasons, yeah... but then it's "just because I like it".

Yet what does the 'fun' come from? It's the same chemical process that's involved in enjoyment of other activities, save that the activity itself is missing - there's no achievement, fulfilment or satisfaction, and nothing that lasts once the chemical's worn off.

Really? As far as I know all those jokes, the crazy thoughts and feelings, and the memories of the things that happened are still there when the chemical's worn off. Weed isn't about "satisfaction", or at least it doesn't give me that at all.

Looking at it objectively, I realise I'm working from the preconception that drugs are a sort of 'second-best' option rather than a desirable end in themselves, but given the ultimately pointless nature of the activity I find it hard to see them in any other way. I wouldn't ask someone why they enjoy, say, cars or sport (to take examples which are foreign to me) as opposed to reading, exploring or whatever, but at least in those cases I can appreciate that there is something there to produce enjoyment, be it particular design characteristics of a vehicle or the satisfaction of watching a game well-played or a favoured team winning (or indeed participating in such a game or team and honing one's skills).

There's nothing intellectual about these activities, but they do seem to be *about* something. I can understand liking drugs for the taste, but from what I understand the taste isn't the principal reason most users take them, it's just incidental, just as someone drinking beer to get drunk might like the taste, but that isn't why they decided to get drunk. I suppose I study frogs, for example, because I like studying frogs, not because I want to feel good and frogging is a means to achieve it. Where I struggle to regard drugs as equivalent is that they appear to be about getting the reward for an enjoyable activity without actually doing anything enjoyable, which I find baffling - it's entirely about the end without any regard to the means.

The problem is that you associate "intellectual" with "ejoyment" which not everybody does. What's what produces the enjoyment on lying on the grass with your eyes closed and do "nothing"? I enjoy doing nothing, and too many people do. I know there's a great difference between "happiness" and "satisfaction", but both are enjoyable. Sometimes I have bouts of happiness (when completely sober) and I start dancing around and feel all happy for no apparent reason, and I enjoy them even if I don't feell "satistifed". Simple things might be enjoyable.

And as I said. I enjoy the mindlessness of it, I like the fact that there's nothing intellectual about it because I already spent too much time with that. In fact I end up having "intellectual" discussions in my head for days after them analyzing the differences of my thought process with and without weed. There's an obvious difference, and it's an interesting one to explore too. But that's the intellectual iside me, I'm sure most don't think about their experiences with weed on those terms.

This implies a difficulty in relaxing without the use of stimulants. It strikes me that the explanations for the appeal of drug use mooted here - to become more sociable, to see the world in 'altered states', to avoid being self-conscious - are all about manipulating mood, every bit as much as attempts to use them to stave off depression; what is that if not a form of self-medication? They're used as an aid to achieve something one can't otherwise do, not because they're enjoyable in and of themselves.

I do relax without them 99% of the time and I don't have problems with it. I used to years ago, but I solved them way before I tried weed.

Then you have a lot more self-control than many, if not most, or perhaps the problems were less severe. How many people do you suppose "just" take the stuff twice to make their problems go away for a night and find that so relaxing they can't help but do it again ... and again ... and ...?

Thanks. I don't know, but I can tell you that I have several friends who smoke with me on our recreational use days and they use it in the same way that I do, so I know I'm not the only one.

PS: so much talking about weed it's making me want it. I had planned getting stoned today, to celebrate that my exams were over, but since I'm going to donate blood tomorrow and then going to my parents, I guess it'll be postponed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Very true' date=' but there is also a less commonly recognised difference between 'drug abuse' and 'drug addiction' - "someone who spends their life stoned" is an addict' date=' but not all drug abusers are addicts. To my, those who use drugs for the taste (such as people who drink alcohol for the taste of the alcohol) is a drug user; someone who takes them for the chemical rush is an abuser, as there's no fundamental difference between what they're doing and what the addict is doing, merely a difference in quantity.[/quote'']

I don't agree there. In my opinion liking the taste or the chemical rush doesn't make a difference... I don't care if somebody gets drunk because they like how wine tastes or because they like to be drunk, it's the quantity or the finality what matters... in this case you can like the chemical rush to have fun, and that doesn't constitute abuse in my mind, if you're doing for other kind of reasons, yeah... but then it's "just because I like it".

I really think the motive needs to be taken into consideration when deciding whether something is abuse or not - how else would you differentiate between those who use it to escape from their problems and those who do it "just for fun"? Though I think further discussion of this point will grind down into semantic quibbling - I think we're both agreed on the essential point that someone who uses drugs to escape from their problems is an abuser; I just have a slightly broader-brush approach.

Yet what does the 'fun' come from? It's the same chemical process that's involved in enjoyment of other activities' date=' save that the activity itself is missing - there's no achievement, fulfilment or satisfaction, and nothing that lasts once the chemical's worn off. [/quote']

Really? As far as I know all those jokes, the crazy thoughts and feelings, and the memories of the things that happened are still there when the chemical's worn off. Weed isn't about "satisfaction", or at least it doesn't give me that at all.

That's what I find hard to understand - if I do something I find enjoyable I want it to be satisfying; not necessarily (though usually) intellectually so, but at least to feel there was some point to it. I can remember laughing, joking and being with friends without the aid of drugs, and I've never felt any desire for drugs to 'enhance' the experience - indeed I wonder what sort of mentality would prompt such a desire if one enjoys being around one's friends for their own sake.

Looking at it objectively' date=' I realise I'm working from the preconception that drugs are a sort of 'second-best' option rather than a desirable end in themselves, but given the ultimately pointless nature of the activity I find it hard to see them in any other way. I wouldn't ask someone why they enjoy, say, cars or sport (to take examples which are foreign to me) as opposed to reading, exploring or whatever, but at least in those cases I can appreciate that there is something there to produce enjoyment, be it particular design characteristics of a vehicle or the satisfaction of watching a game well-played or a favoured team winning (or indeed participating in such a game or team and honing one's skills).

There's nothing intellectual about these activities, but they do seem to be *about* something. I can understand liking drugs for the taste, but from what I understand the taste isn't the principal reason most users take them, it's just incidental, just as someone drinking beer to get drunk might like the taste, but that isn't why they decided to get drunk. I suppose I study frogs, for example, because I like studying frogs, not because I want to feel good and frogging is a means to achieve it. Where I struggle to regard drugs as equivalent is that they appear to be about getting the reward for an enjoyable activity without actually doing anything enjoyable, which I find baffling - it's entirely about the end without any regard to the means.[/quote']

The problem is that you associate "intellectual" with "ejoyment" which not everybody does. What's what produces the enjoyment on lying on the grass with your eyes closed and do "nothing"? I enjoy doing nothing, and too many people do. I know there's a great difference between "happiness" and "satisfaction", but both are enjoyable. Sometimes I have bouts of happiness (when completely sober) and I start dancing around and feel all happy for no apparent reason, and I enjoy them even if I don't feell "satistifed". Simple things might be enjoyable.

Well, my initial conjecture on this thread was to suggest that intelligent, more intellectually-inclined people might be drawn away from drugs towards more intellectual pursuits for more or less this reason (although looking at the figures in the poll I retract that - 21% answered 'yes' or 'sort of', which is within the range most countries report for cannabis abuse, albeit towards the low end, so it doesn't seem that there are proportionately fewer users here after all). However, as I mentioned I don't think everything enjoyable has to be intellectual (such as the example of sport), but I do struggle to understand how something can be enjoyable if it has no point - and that includes lazing around in a field, on a beach or whatever. Early last year I had to spend a couple of days in Campo Grande in Brazil, where there was basically nothing to do but wait in the hotel - and I hadn't got any reading material left. I was almost out of my mind with boredom after the first half hour, let alone two days.

On the other hand, when you make that analogy I do at least understand that other people do enjoy sitting around doing nothing, though I don't understand why. I suppose the problem I'm having is that I want to be able to rationalise it, to understand it analytically. But there's nothing rational to analyse, and I find that frustrating. That probably explains why I have a distinct preference for the psychological papers that present evidence for underlying reasons behind drug abuse, as opposed to anecdotal accounts of "why I do it" that seem completely alien to me.

PS: so much talking about weed it's making me want it. I had planned getting stoned today, to celebrate that my exams were over, but since I'm going to donate blood tomorrow and then going to my parents, I guess it'll be postponed.

I've been told that for some bizarre reason I can't give blood in Australia. Normally I can't give blood because I've been to malarial areas within six months, but the one time I've been out of the malarial zone for a year or more I can't give blood - because I've been in the UK within the last two years. Something about BSE, apparently, in spite of the fact that practices that caused the BSE epidemic ended more than two years ago, if I had it I'd probably be showing symptoms or be dead by now, and it's not transmitted in blood anyway. It's insane.

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites
That does it!!

I'm never touching marijuana, hash, LSD, cocaine, mescaline, amyls, uppers, downers, ether, Valium, or Budweiser EVER again! 8)

i will :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope never smoked it but been present when someone was (ona bus) and I had no idea what it was....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think weed stanks! Ruins every rock concert I go to...I practically started hyperventalating at the Motley Crue concert. lol I've never tried it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oddly enough, it was weed that has brought me one of my few sexual experiences.

To prelude - I don’t smoke weed – not for moralistic reasons but because I simply don’t enjoy being stoned. My brain chemistry seems to be different from those who do enjoy it. My usually vivid imagination becomes more vivid that I can stand. My thoughts start racing in manic, never-ending cycles, I become paranoid and socially inept – I simply can’t relax, I can’t speak, I can’t be around people.

So when my last partner, two years ago, offered me his home-made hash cookies – saying they would help me to feel more sensual, which might help me feel more sexual – I kept refusing.

One day I recklessly accepted half a cookie, and didn’t get terribly stoned or paranoid off it, just mildly giggly. On the basis of that experience, I accepted another half cookie off him one evening when we were out.

Well that batch was SO much stronger. After going through a terrible hour of extreme stoned paranoia at a restaurant, and finally insisting we leave as I felt out of control, we ended up in the dark corner of a pub, where I felt much safer.

We started to kiss…. and omg, it was the best kiss I’d ever had in my life. It went on and on - I felt I could drown it forever. The weed was focussing me on my body’s sensations, to the exclusion of all else but me… and him. Even my mind stopped racing, and was engulfed in the physicality of it.

And then, whoa… my loins were on fire! I don’t remember ever feeling intensity like this before! I recall thinking “so THIS is what it’s like to be sexual”! It was amazing… and new, and I could see suddenly what drives sexuals to act as they do, to try and capture this feeling of addictive, escalating excitement.

But sadly we were simply not able to go and do the deed right then. I had to soon catch the last train to country Victoria, where I was living, and he had to go off to his night job. My only sexual moment was never consummated. (We spilt up a few weeks later, without repeating the experiment, though it was intended – leaving me with the memory of the best kiss ever) :D

I hesitate to use weed as a means to that end, as I really don’t want to go through the paranoia stage in order to get there. Or to become reliant on it. But it’s interesting that it kills some peoples’ desire, where as for me, it located my absentee desire and heightened it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think weed stanks! Ruins every rock concert I go to...I practically started hyperventalating at the Motley Crue concert. lol I've never tried it.

I find weed smells a lot less objectionable than cigarettes. I don't mind a whiff of it now and then. I don't like being surrounded in couds of smoke of any kind though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've smoked weed. Used to, anyway. I can't say it's something I would actively seek to do anymore, as I did find it to be somewhat overrated. Although, I don't see anything particularly wrong with it either, and I'm not sure I appreciate some of the moral superiority being slung around in this thread. What's the big deal? It was just a question. Lighten up, willya?

Agree wholeheartedly. I've smoked weed a few times (<20, no exact count, over about three years), and may yet do it again simply because it is a good relaxant. Can I understand why people would want to have nothing to do with it, or not want to be around people who use it? Sure. From there to trying to convince people to stop using it altogether? No. Live your own life. Sever if you feel you cannot stay in contact with them while they're using drugs, but don't think you have the authority to tell them how to live their life.

What really gets on my nerves, though, are the people who claim "it's not harming anyone else" - take drugs if you must, but don't be hypocritical enough to blind yourself to the effects you're having on others, both the emotional stresses placed on family and friends (the stock line "how is it affecting you?" in response to criticism has always struck me as breathtakingly selfish - the implicit assumption being that one should only care about things that directly affect them and not be concerned for the wellbeing of those they care about) and the injustices that come from funding the drug barons - the extortion and exploitation of peasant farmers, the funding the drugs trade provides for arms and wildlife smuggling, the support it provides for tyrannical regimes (before their fall, the Taleban were the world's major cannabis as well as opium producers), the murders, gang warfare and brutalisation of debtors... Not to mention the social implications of smoked drugs, especially as evidence of harm caused by passive tobacco smoking continues to mount - it's hard to imagine that passive smoking from tar-heavy cannabis is any more benign.

Wow. I would have trouble disagreeing more. I guess we have different takes on social interaction or something, but wow. For one, I've never known *anyone* to say their relationship with their parents was affected by weed - they did it on their own time, mostly in college, some in high school on nights out, and weren't high when they got home - so their parents never found out.

Now, I won't defend drug *abuse*, nor less-abusive use of certain other drugs - if you're taking E and then going home to your kids (really any drug when you're a parent), or if you're a heroin addict and constantly imposing on family/friends/etc, then yes, you're fucking up and scarring people for life. No argument. But I simply won't agree that casual weed use has negative effects on friends/family/loved ones (unless you're very open about it or your life partner is very anti-marijuana, in which case it's not really the weed that's to blame, now is it.)

About the drug baron/terrorism/gang thing... most of my weed-smoking friends are west-coasters. They swear by British Columbia weed, so please don't try to tell me they're funding terrorism and the Taliban by buying weed from their friends back home. Is this probably an issue elsewhere? Sure. Discounting all arguments saying "it isn't affecting anyone else" without knowing the specifics is nonetheless complete generalization.

As for the tar argument - I've never known anyone to go imposing their marijuana smoke on someone else*. I would think we have its illegality to thank for this, though having been to the Netherlands, I have to say it was still rather secluded, and easy to avoid if you should want to. In all situations where I've smoked weed, everyone present did as well - the second-hand smoke argument thus fails miserably, and if you're going to say that voluntarily inhaling somewhat harmful smoke (on a non-abusive basis, again) is destroying the lives of other people whom you don't expose to the smoke.. well, enough said, really.

*Sure, if you're in college, and hang out in certain parties or parts of a party, you'll probably find people smoking weed and not terribly caring if you'd rather they leave, but honestly: you're the one who chose the people to hang out with, chose the party to go to, and chose the room in the party. Leave the room/party/people if it bothers you so much. Trying to restrict the lifestyles of other people simply so that you can hang out with them without having your personal values infringed upon is absurd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What amazes me about this thread is that this crap is illegal,and you can have your life ruined if found in possesion of it. And that people are trying to rationalize it being "harmless". Felony Convictions are not "harmless" in the way they affect your life.

So I suggest you save your rationalizations of why it's "ok to smoke pot" for "Bubba" in the prison cell as he is about to rape your asexual ass-I'm sure he'll get a big laugh out of it all.

The law won't care,and neither will he.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Artisan, that's only if you live in the USA. In Canada, in many places the law enforcement authorities look the other way when it comes to personal marijuana use -- they only go after those who grow it in massive quantities for the purposes of selling it. And there are some places (eg, the Netherlands) where it's legal. (I can foresee it becoming legal in Canada within the next decade or two.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm quite aware of that Torgo. I used to be a pot smoker when I was younger,and foolish. I know exactly what it does to you,and why they call it dope. It certainly doesn't help your motivation and brain power.

Cigarettes and booze are legal here. And poison. I don't indulge in them,and I don't even eat drano for "Fun".

Imagine that! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but your point was that smoking weed can land you in a great huge pile of legal trouble. I was merely pointing out that your point applies only if you live in the USA, where it seems everything is becoming illegal. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you do a search about the effects of pot on the body,it can land you in a lot more trouble than legal,in any country.

Short term memory loss.

Emphysema,lung cancer-it has MUCH more carcinogenic tar than cigarettes. And the origional poster has point-it does decrease sex drive in some males-by increasing estrogen levels. They even devolop breasts.

And you can still get a ticket for driving under the influence of it,even in Canada-it's a mind altering substance. As far as I am concered,any drug that is not prescribed and "impairs" one,is NOT a good thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, and our drug laws are needlessly harsh, and they're creating more problems than they're solving.

And prison rape's a really appropriate punishment for smoking a drug that doesn't do much beyond make you really mellow and hungry. :roll:

I don't do drugs. I never have, I never will. But the reactions of other people never cease to amaze and sadden me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the drug laws are stupid. Really, they are only a conservative hold over from the 1930's,and politicians worry more about losing votes than anything else. They would be far better off to legalize and tax them-thereby controlling quality, and destroying a large segment of criminal's income. Crips and Bloods would starve.

It put gansters out of business when prohibition was repealed,and it would do it again. But as iran contra proved,it would also dry up CIA funding for "black projects"(ones they don't want congress asking questions about) Some of these drugs come into the country on military transports that never get checked by customs,period.(which is one reason we are "helping to control drugs" in columbia..How often do you hear about our military operations THERE? Ever wonder WHY there is no press coverage of it?)

Oliver North took the heat for that one,but you can bet his orders came from higher up. Just like the minor officers who are doing jail time for participating in the Iraq prison abuse scandal,he took the fall for more CIA operartives.

But then again,the goverment at various levels has always been jealous of guarding thier monopolies. Why else DO you think they are so resistant to legalization?

Something is rotten,and it's NOT in Denmark.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Artisan, I'm confused; Are you saying (1) pot is bad because it is illegal, or (2) pot is bad because it is bad for you, or (3) pot is illegal because it is bad for you? Your two latest posts seem to completely drop the illegality, which is all Torgo was talking about. Edit: Yeah, ok, and the post just above mine pretty much just confuses me. Nevermind.

Since we're suggesting things: Hey, I suggest we keep the animosity out of this thread, ok?

So I suggest you save your rationalizations of why it's "ok to smoke pot" for "Bubba" in the prison cell as he is about to rape your asexual ass-I'm sure he'll get a big laugh out of it all.

^^ doesn't exactly promote quality discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I pointed out a possible consequence of what can happen with current laws.

Three main points.

1. It's illegal,you can suffer for it.

2. It's mind altering schedule 2 *narcotic*-it also has negative impacts on not just the brain,but the body. It's stupid to use it. I know this from personal experience. Using niccotene and alchohol are equally stupid-they just happen to be legal.

3. While legal in other countries,it is not in the US. Nor will it be,in the forseeable future-it is not in the best interests of the regulating goverment to make it otherwise. Pot is literally a weed that grows anywhere,even in poor soil. They cannot make sufficient tax money off of it, if anyone can grow it. Alchohol is regulated and taxed,you are only allowed to make a certain amount of your own each year. And most people cannot obtain tobacco seeds. Look at the astronomical taxes imposed on smokers as proof of how very nice this is for government.

Ergo-if pot is made legal,then more people would use it as an alternative to niccotene and booze-you with me so far? Resulting in a loss of government tax revenues from declining cigarette and alchohol sales, and no way to effectively tax and control the pot market.

And you Candians are not immune from this,even with relaxed codes. Your own government is still busting grow operations over a certain level-so much for liberalism.

Does that make a little more sense?

(And as an amusing little post script,do you know who the CIA director,the man with a finger in every pie, WAS during the Iran contra period? George Bush Sr. If my previous post "confused you" I suggest you google it, and teach yourself a little history. Ignorance is NOT bliss, my friend.) :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Drug use is a contentious siubject among asxuals it seems judging from past posts. My own view is that taking drugs is no more different than drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes. Indeed abuse of intoxicants is common among wild animals as well, who deliberately seek out fermented fruit for alcohol to get drunk etc(eg:- elephants/chimps etc.). It seems that the greater the intelligence of an animal, the greater the stress of thought etc., so that they need a diversion from that from time to time. Humans especially need such altered states of consciousness and seek all sorts of alternatives ranging from television to gambling to drugs etc.

That said, I have only once smoked marijuana due to experiment and never bothered again. I agree with Schopenhauer's Hindu-derived ideas, that seeking pleasure for its own sake is not the best approach in life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On a side note, if you're interested in the legality of drugs look into the Salvia Divinorum (I think that's right) case in Australia. Put simply, no tests were officially done, and as well as being the only country in the world where it is illegal, it has been put on par with heroine... just something interesting for you :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...