Airjoe wrote:
Uh, making your own alchol is actually really easy Also remarkably dangerous, unless you're referring to something like microbrewing or fermenting wine, which some people do at home. Distilling grain alcohol tends to come with a risk of methanol poisoning unless you really know what you're doing. Lummox JR | |
Lummox JR wrote:
Airjoe wrote: Yeah, and then you can get moonshine. Moonshine = bad. Methanol can cause blindness and death, both which aren't good. | |
Ben, I think you want to make yourself believe that it's universally accepted to please yourself, and to make yourself feel that it is ok to smoke pot.
| |
Ben G wrote:
Let's look at it this way. Considering lung cancer doesn't tend to appear for a long time in most people, that tells you nothing. Any other cases that might have popped up could have been attributed to non-smoking causes (sometimes it just happens!) or to second-hand smoke. Lummox JR | |
Knifo wrote:
Ben, I think you want to make yourself believe that it's universally accepted to please yourself, and to make yourself feel that it is ok to smoke pot. I am pretty sure it is acceptable to please yourself. I touch myself all the time, it is pretty much a healthy part of being a human and alive. I want to ask you Knifo why you think it isn't OK to smoke pot. I have plenty of friends who smoke pot, almost on a regular basis that are good, productive people. And poy is most likely more healthy then it is to smoke normal old cigarettes which are loaded down with all sorts of harmful toxins. And more to the point, I hear less about people being indirectly killed by the misuse of pot then I do about the misuse of alcohol. If anything it shouldn't be acceptable to drink. But that is all based on one person's standard. So I don't think you should be telling people what is and what isn't acceptable. | |
We didn't need to know that you touch yourself, it's not okay to smoke pot because it's incredibly unhealthy and harmful, and cigarette use can be more or less harmful than pot depending upon one's habits.
You don't hear about people dieing of misusing pot because it's illegal and it sends the wrong messages. Also, regardless of what you may have heard, drinking is MUCH more common than smoking pot. Sorry bud. And no, it's not okay to bite down into a McDonald's anything. It's acceptable and pleasing, but all it is doing is pleasing your hunger and hurting your health. | |
I agree with you that my view of punishment may have been a little harsh and unnecessary, but if you catch someone numerous times with pot after a number of warning, they stand a chance of being a dealer and if this can't be proven, there should be some form of punishment. I like the idea of house arrest.
| |
Ben G wrote:
We call that certain area planet Earth. No, we call that Ben G's stoner corner of the Earth. Haha, you know so little about marijuana, it's really laughable. Everyone is different and some people can handle an ounce. And even so, if they passed out from smoking an ounce, they still smoked the ounce, did they not? Good. | |
CaptFalcon33035 wrote:
if you catch someone numerous times with pot after a number of warning, they stand a chance of being a dealer Oh, wow. Wow. | |
CaptFalcon33035 wrote:
We didn't need to know that you touch yourself, it's not okay to smoke pot because it's incredibly unhealthy and harmful, and cigarette use can be more or less harmful than pot depending upon one's habits. Okay, so why does the fact that something is unhealthy make it bad? Some people are willing to take risks and live a little. You don't hear about people dieing of misusing pot because it's illegal and it sends the wrong messages. Also, regardless of what you may have heard, drinking is MUCH more common than smoking pot. Sorry bud. Hrm. You know, it seems to me that anti-drug agencies would jump on the chance to talk about marijuana-caused deaths, just like they do with every other drug. "We don't want kids to smoke pot, so we sure as HELL don't want to tell them about these people who died. That's just sending the wrong message." And no, it's not okay to bite down into a McDonald's anything. It's acceptable and pleasing, but all it is doing is pleasing your hunger and hurting your health. Thanks for, once again, telling me what it's okay to do with my body. I really don't know what the world would do without your infallible standards. | |
Lummox JR wrote:
Considering lung cancer doesn't tend to appear for a long time in most people, that tells you nothing. Any other cases that might have popped up could have been attributed to non-smoking causes (sometimes it just happens!) or to second-hand smoke. You can explain away a case here and a case there, but really, if marijuana was carcinogenic in normal doses, why hasn't there been one lung cancer case? | |
So. Are you saying that the enforcers of our laws, the police officers and judges, have not broken any laws themselves? Pretty much the same thing. Not what I said at all... in fact, "pretty much" the exact opposite of what I said. | |
No, you really did imply that. Marijuana smokers don't think that smoking is a healthy habit, and you're implying that it is viewed as such by THOSE DAMN STUPID STONERS! I know marijuana doesn't make you hallucinate, so I wonder what else you're taking that you see somebody saying these things. Oh, well. Keep arguing with them, though. I'm feeling really good about my decision to drop out of this and all other BYOND community arguments right now. | |
Ben G wrote:
Lummox JR wrote: You're completely missing his point. He's saying that there could easily have been lung cancer cases resulting from marijuana use that weren't diagnosed as such. It's hard to draw such a connection years or decades after the fact (especially if there is a prevailing preconception that marijuana doesn't cause lung cancer because it's "natural" or whatever), and so people will tend to blame it on a more "obvious" cause. Like second-hand smoke, or just pure chance (you don't need to be a smoker to get lung cancer, after all). | |
Crispy wrote:
You're completely missing his point. He's saying that there could easily have been lung cancer cases resulting from marijuana use that weren't diagnosed as such. It's hard to draw such a connection years or decades after the fact (especially if there is a prevailing preconception that marijuana doesn't cause lung cancer because it's "natural" or whatever), and so people will tend to blame it on a more "obvious" cause. Like second-hand smoke, or just pure chance (you don't need to be a smoker to get lung cancer, after all). I'm not, but you're sure missing mine. My point is that while that may be true, I am certain that at least -one- case of lung cancer would have been blamed on marijuana. A single one. | |
On what grounds could you possibly assert that? You're making an argument based on personal beliefs about probabilities that you can't possibly justify.
I'm going to exit the conversation now because it's reached the point where everyone is arguing from their own gut feelings without any actual proof. At this stage, any further discussion would be completely unproductive. | |
Crispy wrote:
On what grounds could you possibly assert that? You're making an argument based on personal beliefs about probabilities that you can't possibly justify. And you're not? You're saying marijuana is a carcinogen, disregarding the fact that there hasn't been a single documented case of a medical professional saying marijuana caused cancer, and you have the audacity to say that I'm speaking from my gut? I'm saying there is insufficient evidence to prove that pot causes cancer - you're saying there is, but all you're doing is making excuses for why the evidence doesn't exist. If you have a compelling argument that medical professionals have missed, please share it. | |
maybe it should be a hobby- then people could compare it to smoking pot 'recreationally'.
(yes i'm taking things out of some level of context, but then again, that's how my mind works these days)