Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Helgoland]

Nope, it doesn't. It's business is to protect the others from you and vice versa, and taxes are a good way of achieving that.

ebbor: That will happen to some degree even without taxes; the only way to prevent this is funding more rehab centers, providing acceptance for drug use as well as going to rehab and integrating users into normal society so that they can work and stay out of poverty.
This will of course not work for hardcore baseheads/crackheads/junkies, but if that turns out to be a problem non-mandatory rehab along with enforced abstinence (regular tests, no permission to buy) might help.

[10ebbor10]

The real question is, does the government have any business protecting me from myself?

Depends. The answer to that question is the same as to the question:
"Does the governement need to take care of me/ my problems/ the problems I cause"

[pisskop]

The real question is, does the government have any business protecting me from myself?

That's actually a secondary development of governments.

It's often more portecting their citizens from potential danger/harm/degeneracy while ensuring a production workforce.  I suppose I say yes, it does have the authority to tell its citizens what to do.

But I like the way it was said above more.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I heard that cannibus had a more devestating effect upon the lungs per weight.

Depends on the way it's ingested. It burns at higher temperatures than tobacco, and produces more of the stuff that clogs up your lungs.

On the other hand, with weed you really can stop any time you feel like it.

[DJ]

I can definitely see how all the nanny state measures can help the bottomline of the national economy, but I just don't think that trading freedom for efficiency is a good deal.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It isn't addictive, as it contains no addictive ingredients. The only kind of addiction worth talking about is physical addiction, as psychological addiction can be obtained for anything.

Heroin, for example, is physically addictive. Even if you have an unbreakable force of will, you will physically start to whither away if you stop using it.

[pisskop]

And what feels good is more likely to be so, even if it is actually bad in the long term.  To throw away a concept because it can imply anything is ignoring facts and forming an imperfect conclusion.

Mental psychological addiction is addiction.

Edit: The weed can affect your performance if you use regularly and suddenly stop.  This is measurable and thus not ignorable.

[GlyphGryph]

Tobacco may be more harmful physically, but it doesn't cause anywhere NEAR as much psychological damage as Marijuana.

I wasn't aware Marijuana caused any serious psychological damage? At the very least it would cause far less than alcohol.

Main benefit of marijuana is that, as far as I am aware, ingesting it is perfectly safe - chewing tobacco, meanwhile, is arguably worse than smoking the stuff.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

He's talking about the studies suggesting that marijuana can reduce IQ if used during brain development (no surprise there, that applies to most drugs) and can trigger an existing predisposition towards schizophrenic episodes.

[Frumple]

And what feels good is more likely to be so, even if it is actually bad in the long term.  To throw away a concept because it can imply anything is ignoring facts and forming an imperfect conclusion.

Mental psychological addiction is addiction.

Edit: The weed can affect your performance if you use regularly and suddenly stop.  This is measurable and thus not ignorable.

Point being PK, so can a lot of crap we don't criminalize responsible use of. Like happiness! Or anti-depressants. Or food. Or shelter. And etc., so forth, so on. Psychological addiction isn't something we should be using as a heuristic for criminality or morality, because we (probably) can't apply that heuristic consistently. And if you can't do that, it's a bad heuristic 99%* of the time.

*More like ninety-nine point nine repeating percent, really. I'm not saying it's not possible, but it's really bloody hard to find a case where an inconsistent heuristic is even remotely approaching good methodology.

[PanH]

He's talking about the studies suggesting that marijuana can reduce IQ if used during brain development (no surprise there, that applies to most drugs) and can trigger an existing predisposition towards schizophrenic episodes.

I thought that everyone knew that IQ is non-standart and subjective, and thus unusable in any reliable study.

[10ebbor10]

He's talking about the studies suggesting that marijuana can reduce IQ if used during brain development (no surprise there, that applies to most drugs) and can trigger an existing predisposition towards schizophrenic episodes.

I thought that everyone knew that IQ is non-standart and subjective, and thus unusable in any reliable study.

Depends. If you have the same standardized tests and the same people, it can imply a causality. For strict scientific stuff you'd have to look at the brain structure though.

However, there appear to be studies that indicate that cannabis can indeed damage brains, if used during adolecence. Sabotages neural connections.

[10ebbor10]

Replace molecules with proteins, Miniature detonators with those same proteins, and brain cells with chemical receptors, and you got a pretty good idea of how the stuff works.

[penguinofhonor]

It isn't addictive, as it contains no addictive ingredients. The only kind of addiction worth talking about is physical addiction, as psychological addiction can be obtained for anything.

Heroin, for example, is physically addictive. Even if you have an unbreakable force of will, you will physically start to whither away if you stop using it.

Turns out you were right, nothing addictive in it, it's just usually mixed with tobacco, hence the addiction.

Who mixes marijuana with tobacco?

[pisskop]

I did!  And coke. . .  the real stuffs, not 'coke' slang for crack-cocaine.

Its supposed to increase your high. i.e. lightheaded because of no filter.

But that's different world. . .