It's been proven that actually lessens motivation. People wouldn't be more productive on pot, but I do agree with the overall happier statement. That is until they develop lung problems from smoking it.

 

. . . and there's a whole generation of Dutch who are finding this out the hard way.

 

proven? by whom? lung problems?

from what i have read, it seems that thc actually is anti cancerous for lungs and prevents parkinsons.

well all the proof i need is myself. i used dominate those that dont smoke, all day long in school and standardized tests (sometimes even under the influence), so what does taht prove?

lung problems? greatest athletes in the world consume excessive amounts. lets see rasheed wallace nba champion. lamar odom, terell owens, the list goes on and on.

 

How many Terrell Owens, Rasheed Wallaces, and Lamar Odoms are there in the world? Not that many. Don't forget that they also exercise religously and have regimented diets and lifestyles that would help them overcome any perceived or real negative effects from pot.

The fact that some people (the top 0.0001%) are not so severely affected (or even supposedly affected at all) proves nothing when the vast majority are moderately to severely inhibited through regular use.

The fact that you use it and still ace a lot of tests tells me that you have talent but lack the common sense to use said talent more effectively.

Pot is a natural painkiller. Otherwise, it's generally harmful to your body. I don't think that's even remotely debateable.

 

the point is that there really is no conclusive evidence to support either argument. the way the US gov has pot scheduled, there will be no evidence.

pot is a natural pain killer? wtf... i dunno about that at all.

its generally harmful like time is generally harmful/fatal to humans. but not more so than alcohol or jumbo jacks with ranch sauce from jack in the crack. agreed its not debateable.

25 reasons

 

Pot being "anti-cancerous"? Meaning it prevents it? Does not cause it? I'm pretty sure it actually has some of the same cancer-causing chemicals as cigarettes do, but I'd have to look that up.

IIRC correctly, the tar level in pot is higher than cigarettes. It's also been proven that smoking pot daily permanently impairs your memory as welll as other brain functions.

 

^That's probably the best reason right there.

 

[QUOTE=trainwreck,Mar 2 2007, 02:29 PM]the point is that there really is no conclusive evidence to support either argument.

 

This is just hilarious. Truth is, most people just don't know how many people around them are high. Not necessarily on marijuana, either. There are multitudes of people smoking pot, snorting coke, addicted to prescription painkillers, etc., all around you every single day, doing everyday things and living normal lives, and you don't see it because they're perfectly normal. We get bombarded with terrible images of people who screwed up their lives doing drugs so that's what we look for. But in reality, drug users are everywhere and in general their lives aren't very different from the typical guy who goes to the bar after work for a beer with coworkers. Believe what you will, but people are able to use drugs and live perfectly normal and productive lives.

Yes, there are people who destroy their lives with drugs. Likewise, there are people who destroy their lives by overworking, by overeating, by crashing their cars, and countless other methods. That doesn't mean that those things should be legislated (or maybe it means that all of those things should be legislated), and it certainly doesn't mean that those things are dangerous in the hands of all. Don't judge others by your own limitations.

The true tragedy is when a guy who is able to be productive, hold down a job, take care of his family, and so forth, is thrown in jail for smoking a little pot. Talk about ruining a life.

Personally I think it's a fool's errand to argue that marijuana use isn't unhealthy. Of course it is -- you're inhaling the smoke from a burning plant directly into your lungs! But really, the health argument is a moot and irrelevant point. The real question is why should something be illegal simply because it's harmful? If that were the criteria for legislation, then our daily lives would be devoid of too many familiar things to count. Where does the line get drawn? At marijuana? At alcohol? Red meat? Skydiving? Motorcycling?

 

[QUOTE=JonBoy,Mar 2 2007, 12:48 PM] Pot is absolutely a natural painkiller.