[mothered]

People follow the media, not what's actually happening.
It's sad.

I certainly agree.

The media Is a very competitive Industry, and their job predominantly Involves getting the best story publicized In the best possible way. And In doing so, they bend the truth and create all sorts of fanciful stories to grab the public's attention and stay ahead of the rest.

[Aeolian]

People follow the media, not what's actually happening.
It's sad.

I certainly agree.

The media Is a very competitive Industry, and their job predominantly Involves getting the best story publicized In the best possible way. And In doing so, they bend the truth and create all sorts of fanciful stories to grab the public's attention and stay ahead of the rest.

And then they get rich off it.

[meow]

[*]"current knowledge does not suggest that cannabis smoke will have a carcinogenic potential comparable to that resulting from exposure to tobacco smoke."

[*]

For the fourth time, irrelevant. Not once did I say or imply that cannibis was better or worse than tobacco or vice versa. The fact that smoking cigarettes is worse than weed is not justification for legalizing weed. Cigarettes are only legal because tobacco products play a large role in the US economy, not because they're not bad.

[*]

In your original post (https://sinister.ly/Thread-Drugs--65434?...#pid567091)
"Yeah, let's make available and legalize drugs that have more carcinogens than cigarettes"

In your last post (https://sinister.ly/Thread-Drugs--65434?...#pid567206), you said:
"The point is that cannabis smoke contains more carcinogens than tobacco smoke."

Hilariously, your own source (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277837/) suggested the opposite. So, many of my arguments are relevant.

[*]"noted that with the development of vaporizers, that use the respiratory route for the delivery of carcinogen-free cannabis vapors, the carcinogenic potential of smoked cannabis has been largely eliminated"

[*]

Vaping is already legal, try again. Also take note to the fact that largely eliminated is not the same as completely eliminated.

Still immature as ever, I see.

[*]

Still ignorant as ever, I see. By the way, being rude isn't an ad hominem logical fallacy, you should do a little more research before throwing around words and phrases that you just now learned in your 9th grade English class. I also noticed that you disregarded my statement about cannibis's neurological effects and merely attempted to attack my statement about carcinogens. Therefor, even if you did successfully combat my point regarding carcinogens, which you won't be doing based on past observations, you still have the neuroscience to tackle. Good luck.

[*]

[*]

Laws don't dictate how cannabis is ingested (except in a couple medical states). In the source you provided, it suggested the vapor is "carcinogen-free". Contrary to you, I actually read all of my sources thoroughly. I only touched briefly on the neurological effects, simply because I'd rather not hear an "entire lecture of neuroscience out of [your] bootyhole".

Care to read again?

Your second source is covering people that are smoking abnormally large amounts (">10 years", ">5 joints daily") of cannabis. Despite that, it fails to establish how the brain changes are considered "damaging" and doesn't prove that users are impaired. Studies have suggested a correlation between less grey matter/increased connection[2], but never a difference/correlation with intelligence or IQ[3]. Fertility isn't even worth discussing, as cigarettes and other products/pharmaceuticals also lower fertility (and aren't illegal).

1. http://therealcost.betobaccofree.hhs.gov...index.html
2. http://www.utdallas.edu/news/2014/11/11-...-wide.html
3. http://www.pnas.org/content/113/5/E500

You caught me, I shouldn't have said cannibis has more carcinogens than tobacco. Regardless, it still contains too many carcinogens and poses to many neurological risks to be legalized. Anything else or are we done here?

[pvnk]

[*]

For the fourth time, irrelevant. Not once did I say or imply that cannibis was better or worse than tobacco or vice versa. The fact that smoking cigarettes is worse than weed is not justification for legalizing weed. Cigarettes are only legal because tobacco products play a large role in the US economy, not because they're not bad.

[*]

In your original post (https://sinister.ly/Thread-Drugs--65434?...#pid567091)
"Yeah, let's make available and legalize drugs that have more carcinogens than cigarettes"

In your last post (https://sinister.ly/Thread-Drugs--65434?...#pid567206), you said:
"The point is that cannabis smoke contains more carcinogens than tobacco smoke."

Hilariously, your own source (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277837/) suggested the opposite. So, many of my arguments are relevant.

[*]

Vaping is already legal, try again. Also take note to the fact that largely eliminated is not the same as completely eliminated.


[*]

Still ignorant as ever, I see. By the way, being rude isn't an ad hominem logical fallacy, you should do a little more research before throwing around words and phrases that you just now learned in your 9th grade English class. I also noticed that you disregarded my statement about cannibis's neurological effects and merely attempted to attack my statement about carcinogens. Therefor, even if you did successfully combat my point regarding carcinogens, which you won't be doing based on past observations, you still have the neuroscience to tackle. Good luck.

[*]



[*]

Laws don't dictate how cannabis is ingested (except in a couple medical states). In the source you provided, it suggested the vapor is "carcinogen-free". Contrary to you, I actually read all of my sources thoroughly. I only touched briefly on the neurological effects, simply because I'd rather not hear an "entire lecture of neuroscience out of [your] bootyhole".

Care to read again?

Your second source is covering people that are smoking abnormally large amounts (">10 years", ">5 joints daily") of cannabis. Despite that, it fails to establish how the brain changes are considered "damaging" and doesn't prove that users are impaired. Studies have suggested a correlation between less grey matter/increased connection[2], but never a difference/correlation with intelligence or IQ[3]. Fertility isn't even worth discussing, as cigarettes and other products/pharmaceuticals also lower fertility (and aren't illegal).

1. http://therealcost.betobaccofree.hhs.gov...index.html
2. http://www.utdallas.edu/news/2014/11/11-...-wide.html
3. http://www.pnas.org/content/113/5/E500

?????????

do you have evidence to support your beliefs??

[pvnk]

Some retard already made a thread regarding this, I won't repeat myself, so you can read it if you want to know why I don't think weed (or any drug for that matter) should be legal - https://sinister.ly/Thread-Drugs--65434?page=2

So brutally honest.

Do you get a sense of satisfaction from hurting people whether mentally or physically? Just curious.

How ironic this question is coming from you with that thread about murder you have open.

[meow]

[*]

In your original post (https://sinister.ly/Thread-Drugs--65434?...#pid567091)
"Yeah, let's make available and legalize drugs that have more carcinogens than cigarettes"

In your last post (https://sinister.ly/Thread-Drugs--65434?...#pid567206), you said:
"The point is that cannabis smoke contains more carcinogens than tobacco smoke."

Hilariously, your own source (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277837/) suggested the opposite. So, many of my arguments are relevant.





[*]

Laws don't dictate how cannabis is ingested (except in a couple medical states). In the source you provided, it suggested the vapor is "carcinogen-free". Contrary to you, I actually read all of my sources thoroughly. I only touched briefly on the neurological effects, simply because I'd rather not hear an "entire lecture of neuroscience out of [your] bootyhole".

Care to read again?

[*]
?????????

do you have evidence to support your beliefs??

Please do some reading of previous posts before doing your edgy lowercase response and trying to make yourself look smart.

[pvnk]

[*]
?????????

do you have evidence to support your beliefs??

[*]

Please do some reading of previous posts before doing your edgy lowercase response and trying to make yourself look smart.

lack of proper capitalization in my posts are not an attempt to make myself look intelligent i promise u good sir

[Jiggly]

Interesting how weed legalization is compared with cigarettes... Are we forgetting alcohol is legal and is vastly more damaging than many illegal drugs and cigarettes? Or so I've read.

Alcohol is classified a drug, although if they illegalize that I'd be unhappy.

Yeah true. Ha, remember what happened with prohibition in the last century?

[Zeus]

I dislike Ea, but he made some valid points. I might not be in favor of it being available recreationally, however it can serve as a replacement for many harmful drugs medically.

Funnily, in Obama's writings, he admits to doing both marijuana and cocaine (one of which is a guaranteed felony). Decriminalization should definitely happen, if it isn't made legal.

Too much edge.

We're in the same boat pal. Didn't you use to call yourself vicious?

I've been called vicious, generally in a joking manner.

For someone younger, you sure focus on death a lot:
https://sinister.ly/Thread-Murder-is-not-morally-wrong
https://sinister.ly/Thread-Legalize-Homicide
https://sinister.ly/Thread-Inevitable-death

He fails to fact check half of the things he says and fails to cite his sources. I personally don't do weed or other drugs since they're illegal in all cases in my state. However I don't think people should be treated as criminals just for doing drugs especially non-harmful drugs like weed. The govts. have a case for the ones that can kill you however they shouldn't target the people doing them, rather they should 'help' people get off of them when people ask for help, maybe target dealers who are distributing the ones that can kill you. That's my opinion at least :/