223 replies to this topic

[frostz]

*blink*
Are you serious, here?

of course i am serious here, as a non smoker, i have no existing knowledge on how to acquire this substance short of asking my friends.

Let us assume that i actually did want to smoke and did not know anyone who did smoke, i would probably be stuck googling where to buy weed.

[Sweeney]

of course i am serious here, as a non smoker, i have no existing knowledge on how to acquire this substance short of asking my friends.

Let us assume that i actually did want to smoke and did not know anyone who did smoke, i would probably be stuck googling where to buy weed.

Right... and?
I google where to buy things all the time.

[frostz]

Right... and?
I google where to buy things all the time.

since weed is illegal i honestly would not trust anything that i find on google much less go out to meet such a shady dealer. going to a weed dealer that i find on google whom i don't know anything about is probably gona get me screwed over in more ways than one. I would only trust one that was referred to me by someone i know.

[Sweeney]

since weed is illegal i honestly would not trust anything that i find on google much less go out to meet such a shady dealer. going to a weed dealer that i find on google whom i don't know anything about is probably gona get me screwed over in more ways than one. I would only trust one that was referred to me by someone i know.

The point is that your point is pointless.

You're arguing that drugs would be easier to get if legalised, correct?
Do you not see that legalising drugs would therefore also decrease the number of people that would "get screwed over in more ways than one"? And also increase the availability of help to those who do develop problems?

[frostz]

The point is that your point is pointless.

You're arguing that drugs would be easier to get if legalised, correct?
Do you not see that legalising drugs would therefore also decrease the number of people that would "get screwed over in more ways than one"? And also increase the availability of help to those who do develop problems?

but you are bringing up an entirely different topic if we are going onto protecting people who want to buy, and helping those who develop problems. I am saying its easier to get if legalized and therefore should stay illegal to prevent people who are afraid to break the law, and those without a contact from getting hand on it

[Surrico]

but you are bringing up an entirely different topic if we are going onto protecting people who want to buy, and helping those who develop problems. I am saying its easier to get if legalized and therefore should stay illegal to prevent people who are afraid to break the law, and those without a contact from getting hand on it

It's illegal now yet we still have facilities to help those that are developing problems and unhealthy habits that use regularly.

Also why protect those people that would use it if they want to buy it? If it's legal then it would become no different that alcohol and tobacco. People buy, people use. It's illegal to do it in public and because of smoking causes problems for those around it's been outlawed to smoke in many restaurants. The exception to these are places where you have to be 21 to enter, such as bars. And surprisingly some bars do have nonsmoking areas.

Also it is easier than you would think to find a contact if you are serious about getting it. There are people out there that go to high school and college smelling like pot. If that doesn't throw up a flag saying you can ask them then you either can't smell or need to learn about personal hygiene. If you don't happen to smell anyone like that then there is a riskier try of going into a "bad" part of town and looking for someone shady standing out on a street corner. You drive up, ask, if not drive of, if so you score and ounce and go back home and enjoy the fruits of your labor.

Just so it's known, I have friends that smoke, and I don't care that they smoke. Just as long as they don't have any on them around me or smoke around me. They understand that and actually do that too. I also don't advocate smoking or trying the above to try and purchase it.

[Sweeney]

but you are bringing up an entirely different topic if we are going onto protecting people who want to buy, and helping those who develop problems. I am saying its easier to get if legalized and therefore should stay illegal to prevent people who are afraid to break the law, and those without a contact from getting hand on it

Your point is only valid if you fail to consider the other effects of legalisation and you accept that marijuana is de facto harmful.
Which it demonstrably is not.

Like I said, your point is pointless.

[frostz]

It's illegal now yet we still have facilities to help those that are developing problems and unhealthy habits that use regularly.

Also why protect those people that would use it if they want to buy it? If it's legal then it would become no different that alcohol and tobacco. People buy, people use. It's illegal to do it in public and because of smoking causes problems for those around it's been outlawed to smoke in many restaurants. The exception to these are places where you have to be 21 to enter, such as bars. And surprisingly some bars do have nonsmoking areas.

Also it is easier than you would think to find a contact if you are serious about getting it. There are people out there that go to high school and college smelling like pot. If that doesn't throw up a flag saying you can ask them then you either can't smell or need to learn about personal hygiene. If you don't happen to smell anyone like that then there is a riskier try of going into a "bad" part of town and looking for someone shady standing out on a street corner. You drive up, ask, if not drive of, if so you score and ounce and go back home and enjoy the fruits of your labor.

Just so it's known, I have friends that smoke, and I don't care that they smoke. Just as long as they don't have any on them around me or smoke around me. They understand that and actually do that too. I also don't advocate smoking or trying the above to try and purchase it.

Your point is only valid if you fail to consider the other effects of legalisation and you accept that marijuana is de facto harmful.
Which it demonstrably is not.

Like I said, your point is pointless.

Well first of all, if its so easy to find someone who smokes pot because they smell like pot when you have never smoked or seen anyone smoke before, then how is it that my friends havn't already been detected by their parents when they go as far as smoking next to a window in their own rooms at home?.

And its not so much about protecting the people who want to buy it but to prevent the increase of smokers, or other drug users since we are not talking about pot specifically in this thread (thread topic all drugs should be legalized we are just using pot as an example because it was the direction the thread was going in)

I honestly don't care about those who already smoke, whether or not they stop is their own decision, what i do care about is whether or not the number of drug users would increase should drugs become legalized and the impact on nonusers, and not the consequences on people who already do use it....

[Elle]

Well first of all, if its so easy to find someone who smokes pot because they smell like pot when you have never smoked or seen anyone smoke before, then how is it that my friends havn't already been detected by their parents when they go as far as smoking next to a window in their own rooms at home?.

im gonna go right ahead and say that if theyre smoking that close by to their parents, and the parents still havent picked up on it, theyre either choosing to ignore it, or are just plain fucking stupid.

[frostz]

im gonna go right ahead and say that if theyre smoking that close by to their parents, and the parents still havent picked up on it, theyre either choosing to ignore it, or are just plain fucking stupid.

they smoke at the dead of night, use copious amounts of air freshner spray, and i think one of them uses a "vaporizer?" i know that doesn't leave the obvious smoke smell at all. its entirely possible that your parents do not pick up on it if you are very careful and don't know what it smells like.

Actually since i am in such close proximity to them all the time they do occasionally smoke near me, my mother did not realize what that strange smell i was carrying home was but she did comment on it. My father on the other hand who actually worked in drug control at some point was able to instantly tell that i had come into contact with pot smokers and demanded to smell my hands.

I mean obviously, if you havn't come into contact with the substance before you really won't be able to tel from smell alone..

[Elle]

they smoke at the dead of night, use copious amounts of air freshner spray, and i think one of them uses a "vaporizer?" i know that doesn't leave the obvious smoke smell at all. its entirely possible that your parents do not pick up on it if you are very careful and don't know what it smells like.

Actually since i am in such close proximity to them all the time they do occasionally smoke near me, my mother did not realize what that strange smell i was carrying home was but she did comment on it. My father on the other hand who actually worked in drug control at some point was able to instantly tell that i had come into contact with pot smokers and demanded to smell my hands.

I mean obviously, if you havn't come into contact with the substance before you really won't be able to tel from smell alone..

well then you could have answered your own question genius.

"Well first of all, if its so easy to find someone who smokes pot because they smell like pot when you have never smoked or seen anyone smoke before, then how is it that my friends havn't already been detected by their parents when they go as far as smoking next to a window in their own rooms at home?."

they smoke at the dead of night, use copious amounts of air freshner spray, and i think one of them uses a "vaporizer?" i know that doesn't leave the obvious smoke smell at all. its entirely possible that your parents do not pick up on it if you are very careful and don't know what it smells like.

[frostz]

well then you could have answered your own question genius.

"Well first of all, if its so easy to find someone who smokes pot because they smell like pot when you have never smoked or seen anyone smoke before, then how is it that my friends havn't already been detected by their parents when they go as far as smoking next to a window in their own rooms at home?."

Obviously that was a rhetorical question, its an example to show that people who smell like pot can't always be detected simply from the smell. I answered again in more detail directly in response to you because you were obviously not believing that statement.

Edited by frostz, 20 May 2011 - 05:24 AM.

[Elle]

Obviously that was a rhetorical question, its an example to show that people who smell like pot can't always be detected simply from the smell. I answered again in more detail directly in response to you because you were obviously not believing that statement.

lets be serious for a second. all im hearing right now is "blah blah, blah blah blah, im a spammy moron that wants to up my post count by starting irrelevant, stupid arguments without basis."

OBVIOUSLY, anyone with common sense is well aware that the smell of pot can be masked/ covered up. The point that Surrico was making is that IF you were looking to find some, i can guarrantee you theres people out there that just dont give a shit about covering the smell up. people smoking pot = people buying pot = people knowing of dealers = you getting your hands on some pot. I know that you may not have the mental capacity to process such a possibility, so lets end it here. I refuse to continue to contribute to your stupid , spammy arguments.

[frostz]

lets be serious for a second. all im hearing right now is "blah blah, blah blah blah, im a spammy moron that wants to up my post count by starting irrelevant, stupid arguments without basis."

OBVIOUSLY, anyone with common sense is well aware that the smell of pot can be masked/ covered up. The point that Surrico was making is that IF you were looking to find some, i can guarrantee you theres people out there that just dont give a shit about covering the smell up. people smoking pot = people buying pot = people knowing of dealers = you getting your hands on some pot. I know that you may not have the mental capacity to process such a possibility, so lets end it here. I refuse to continue to contribute to your stupid , spammy arguments.

Your ability to read is obviously defunct considering that i just pointed out that

i can guarrantee you theres people out there that just dont give a shit about covering the smell up

1) you cannot find people by the smell if you've never smelt it before

smoking pot = people buying pot

2) where are you going to find people smoking pot in public? school? the mysterious dark alley in the middle of down town? are you going to go around sniffing people for the smell of pot? if you don't even know what it smells like?

No, obviously you arnt reading what i was writing at all and are just repeating stuff that other people have said without coming up with an argument of your own. I already answered Surrico's post, i am now answering your posts, there is a difference between what he said and what you said.

Edited by frostz, 20 May 2011 - 05:46 AM.

[iargue]

Seriously. The topic is about how all drugs should be legalized.

Not about smelling like pot.

Please stick to the topic.

[Surrico]

Well first of all, if its so easy to find someone who smokes pot because they smell like pot when you have never smoked or seen anyone smoke before, then how is it that my friends havn't already been detected by their parents when they go as far as smoking next to a window in their own rooms at home?.

And its not so much about protecting the people who want to buy it but to prevent the increase of smokers, or other drug users since we are not talking about pot specifically in this thread (thread topic all drugs should be legalized we are just using pot as an example because it was the direction the thread was going in)

I honestly don't care about those who already smoke, whether or not they stop is their own decision, what i do care about is whether or not the number of drug users would increase should drugs become legalized and the impact on nonusers, and not the consequences on people who already do use it....

It is true that it might be harder to find someone smelling of pot if you've never smelled it before. But it is still a distinct aroma different of that tobacco products. And with the recent legislation about smoking in public places the younger generation might not know what pot smells like but still there is a chance that they'll know what tobacco smells like and should be able to figure out that there is a distinct difference.

You can cover the smell with large amounts of air fresheners but that's almost the equivalent of eating a handful of mints when you've been drinking heavily. You smell like Air freshener with a hint of pot. You'll never completely mask the smell 100%.

Another way to look at this is this is the age of prohibition for drugs. They're illegal. People still use them. Crime is rising. The legalization of this should come with the same restrictions as of tobacco. Yes more people will smell of weed but as long as they're not smoking around other people where the second hand smoke can harm them why not let them have a joint? You say you're concerned about preventing an increase of smokers, but there are people out there that would like to smoke but don't because they're afraid of breaking the law. So if you let these people smoke, they know the risk (like tobacco) and they'll know the new laws on where and when they can smoke it. So why not let these law abiding citizens smoke if they chose to?

Seriously. The topic is about how all drugs should be legalized.

Not about smelling like pot.

Please stick to the topic.

Topics like this can get on tangents sometime, all in a way relative to the point but each debate ebbs and flows. Don't keep this proverbial rive stuck in a straight flowing position. Let the water stir a little and then move on.

[iargue]

Topics like this can get on tangents sometime, all in a way relative to the point but each debate ebbs and flows. Don't keep this proverbial rive stuck in a straight flowing position. Let the water stir a little and then move on.

The topic has gotten extremely far off from the original point.

People keep complaining about spam. This is essentially spam, but "debating" at the same time. There was nothing at all in the beginning topic that mentions smoking pot and smelling like pot and people not knowing that you smoke pot by the smell.

That means this topic has gotten extremely far off topic from its original point. Lets go back to where it was, and stick with htat.

[frostz]

It is true that it might be harder to find someone smelling of pot if you've never smelled it before. But it is still a distinct aroma different of that tobacco products. And with the recent legislation about smoking in public places the younger generation might not know what pot smells like but still there is a chance that they'll know what tobacco smells like and should be able to figure out that there is a distinct difference.

You can cover the smell with large amounts of air fresheners but that's almost the equivalent of eating a handful of mints when you've been drinking heavily. You smell like Air freshener with a hint of pot. You'll never completely mask the smell 100%.

Another way to look at this is this is the age of prohibition for drugs. They're illegal. People still use them. Crime is rising. The legalization of this should come with the same restrictions as of tobacco. Yes more people will smell of weed but as long as they're not smoking around other people where the second hand smoke can harm them why not let them have a joint? You say you're concerned about preventing an increase of smokers, but there are people out there that would like to smoke but don't because they're afraid of breaking the law. So if you let these people smoke, they know the risk (like tobacco) and they'll know the new laws on where and when they can smoke it. So why not let these law abiding citizens smoke if they chose to?



Topics like this can get on tangents sometime, all in a way relative to the point but each debate ebbs and flows. Don't keep this proverbial rive stuck in a straight flowing position. Let the water stir a little and then move on.

As far as the topic of legalization goes

You say you're concerned about preventing an increase of smokers, but there are people out there that would like to smoke but don't because they're afraid of breaking the law. So if you let these people smoke, they know the risk (like tobacco) and they'll know the new laws on where and when they can smoke it. So why not let these law abiding citizens smoke if they chose to?

Since i am concerned with preventing an increase of smokers, by legalizing it this population of law abiding people who want to smoke but don't would then increase the smoking population which would be directly against the entire premise of my argument.

I mean, like i said i've been going at this from the standpoint of all drugs not so much that of weed which is just what seems to have become the dominant part of the debate. I don't think it should be legalized weed or anything else, for the good of these people.

Going back to the primary topic of all drugs if we are not only legalizing weed but everything else as well (heroin, meph, etc) do you really want the law abiding, as well as the ignorant to get their hands on them? Even if they were doing these drugs in private and not in public places, they are probably gona get addicted and as their tolerance rises, there would still be an illegal trade for these substances. Because they won't be able to obtain increasing amounts from the government approved pharmacies

As you can see by not legalizing it, we prevent the law abiding and ignorant from beginning on the path of this spiral of addiction. Its not simply about whether or not we should "legalize weed" to protect people who already use it, but rather to protect those who do not.

Seriously, they should be. It should not be the government's business to tell you what you can and cannot put into your body. I don't like the idea that if I am caught smoking a joint walking down the street minding my own business a police officer can quite literally choose to rip me from society and lock me in a cage with the murders and rapists of the world. Thats what criminalization of substances does, it creates nothing but criminals (at the expense of the tax payer mind you!) Non violent drug offenders, to me, are not criminals. They are just people who made the decision to consume a psychoactive substance and experience and altered state of consciousness.

The bottom line is that drug use is not a CRIMINAL problem but a SOCIAL and HEALTH problem.

^ First post by OP

Again, my argument is that its not about protecting those who do drugs already, but to protect those who do not. Because of the harmful nature of the addiction of drugs.

I believe a few pages back i cited reference about China and opium, aside from political reasons, they outlawed it because it was causing a detrimental effect upon the population so we have historical reference for why legalized drug use is bad.


__

As far as the smells thing goes, i have one last thing to say about it

Let us assume that you are a person who had never physically seen soup before(with your eyes) nor smelled them before and were only given chicken broth to smell and see as an experiment and were told that it is a kind of soup. You are blind folded and given two soups to smell, being told that they are both soups of course.

One of them you have never smelled before (beef broth)
The other you have smelled prior to the experiment, chicken broth

You can smell two kinds of soup, and you would know that they different, but without knowing that one is beef broth since you have never encountered it, you would simply classify them both as soup.

You might know that there are two different aromas, but to a person who does not know what soup is and have never encountered soup till now, it must simply be a variation of the first soup. Same as with tobacco, you might think that it is a different brand of cigarette that creates the distinctly different aroma. I know the analogy is kinda spotty but i cant think of another way to articulate this idea atm,

Edited by frostz, 20 May 2011 - 06:57 AM.

[Sweeney]

Why are you concerned with limiting the increase in smokers?
As long as the users are informed about the health considerations, why does your opinion weigh more heavily than theirs?

I'm all for limiting the freedoms of ignorant morons, but informed choice is a different matter.

[frostz]

Why are you concerned with limiting the increase in smokers?
As long as the users are informed about the health considerations, why does your opinion weigh more heavily than theirs?

I'm all for limiting the freedoms of ignorant morons, but informed choice is a different matter.

Its not just smokers per say, but in keeping with the topic of the post i was always taking into consideration that other drugs would be legalized along with smoking.

If it were just smoking weed, im sure my argument would be significantly weaker

[Sweeney]

Its not just smokers per say, but in keeping with the topic of the post i was always taking into consideration that other drugs would be legalized along with smoking.

If it were just smoking weed, im sure my argument would be significantly weaker

No, your argument is still as flimsy as ever.

You've failed to account for why you believe an increase in liberty would be a bad thing.
Legalisation doesn't mean the streets would be flooded with crack; it means better control, better education and better treatment.

People are entitled to informed choices.

[frostz]

No, your argument is still as flimsy as ever.

You've failed to account for why you believe an increase in liberty would be a bad thing.
Legalisation doesn't mean the streets would be flooded with crack; it means better control, better education and better treatment.

People are entitled to informed choices.

Lets start with this then, so that i understand exactly what part of my argument you think is flimsy.

Do you agree with me when i say that legalization will increase drug use? (increase it to include the law abiding and the ignorant/curious who may want to try drugs but either did not want to break the law or couldnt find a source)
Indeed it would not mean that the streets would be flooded with crack, but since i believe that legalization (liberty to use drugs? or do you mean it in another way) would increase drug use, the only option based upon my premise is that it should therefore remain illegal.

[Sweeney]

Lets start with this then, so that i understand exactly what part of my argument you think is flimsy.

Do you agree with me when i say that legalization will increase drug use? (increase it to include the law abiding and the ignorant/curious who may want to try drugs but either did not want to break the law or couldnt find a source)
Indeed it would not mean that the streets would be flooded with crack, but since i believe that legalization (liberty to use drugs? or do you mean it in another way) would increase drug use, the only option based upon my premise is that it should therefore remain illegal.

You haven't demonstrated that an increase in drug use under the circumstances surrounding legalization would be a bad thing.
It is there that your argument collapses, because it has no foundation.

[danielfromburn]

It doesn't matter whether it's legalized or not. It's a fact that people WILL STILL consume it.

[Darkthrone]

His argument is also based on opinion therefore rendering it dismissable... If you provide some details that justify your belief that legalising drug use would increase the amount of drug users then maybe it would hold some ground. Maybe take a look at the drug laws in the Netherlands, mainly Amsterdamn. They have a very lax approach to drug use and I'm fairly sure (can't be arsed to search for any evidence as I don't currently have time) that they didn't witness a significant rise in drug users (other than the tourists that go there for the sole reason that cannabis use is tolerated... ok maybe for the whores as well but you know what I mean).

Edit:

And in my personal experience/opinion if people want to experiment with drugs they will experiment with drugs regardless of the laws surrounding them. There are also people who do not want to experiment with drugs and will not experiment with drugs regardless of the law.

At the end of the day there is no right or wrong answer here, it all boils down to each individuals opinion and motivation for them to rally their side of the argument.

Edited by Darkthrone, 20 May 2011 - 07:49 AM.