Smoke Pot, Yes or No?

[Carlson]

I seen the other poll for smoking. so i figured why not.

[lastmagi]

I voted, Never have, never will.

I've known people who have, though. My respect for them knows no bounds. Lower bounds, that is.

Seriously though, I just don't like the idea of getting myself in some kind of drug-induced high. I especially don't like the idea of making a fool of myself. There are other ways to relax myself.

[Carlson]

well if you put it up there with normal cigs and drinking.. its not that bad in my eyes. Ive tryed it once and didnt like it so stoped. Ive never smoked. and used to drink but not any more

[Tokis-Phoenix]

edit: nevermind.
2nd edit: i take it that by "pot" you are referring to "weed" or "green" a.k.a cannabis?

[Thor]

Why would you ever want to smoke to begin with? Smoke is bad for your lungs.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Why would you ever want to smoke to begin with? Smoke is bad for your lungs.

Why indeed. There are thousands of reasons of why people try it, and many more for people that decide to make a habit of it, most reasons though i have heard fall into the "you only live once", or "i was under pressure to try it out/i was insecure at the time" or "i was simply curious to see what it was like" or "i didn't care much for my body/self back then(usually this ties in with depression, self-hate or unhappyness about the persons life in one way or another) etc.
People do an aweful lot of things that are bad for them knowingly, like cutting their wrists or eating too much or drinking themselves silly all the time. But people still have their reasons.

[Thor]

Hah, I guess self-destruction is a popular hobby among humans.

[strongvoicesforward]

Hah, I guess self-destruction is a popular hobby among humans.

Yes, and employing arguments of futility and bringing other points in to cloud the issue is also a trait common to many without the discipline to stay focused on the topic at hand.

Example:
Smoking is bad for you. It (nicotene and the carcinegens put in tobacco) is a bad drug that causes lung cancer and other health problems so it therefore should be banned or severely regulated.

Undisciplined reply:
But so is drinking. If we are going to do that to smoking then we should do it to drinking also. Besides, we all have to die someday. Everything is bad if you abuse it.

[No-name]

Don't smoke it, don't want it, don't need it.

[strongvoicesforward]

I voted, Never have, never will.

I've known people who have, though. My respect for them knows no bounds. Lower bounds, that is.

Seriously though, I just don't like the idea of getting myself in some kind of drug-induced high. I especially don't like the idea of making a fool of myself. There are other ways to relax myself.

Well said. I echo practically the same sentiment.

I never have and never will smoke it or anything.

All of my friends have, though. While I do look at it as a character flaw (we all have them) of theirs for not being strong enough to resist it, I still respect them for the many other outstanding areas of their life, charities, accomplishments, -- and most of all for being my friend dispite my flaws which they are able to forgive.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Yes, and employing arguments of futility and bringing other points in to cloud the issue is also a trait common to many without the discipline to stay focused on the topic at hand.
Example:
Smoking is bad for you. It (nicotene and the carcinegens put in tobacco) is a bad drug that causes lung cancer and other health problems so it therefore should be banned or severely regulated.
Undisciplined reply:
But so is drinking. If we are going to do that to smoking then we should do it to drinking also. Besides, we all have to die someday. Everything is bad if you abuse it.

Such a topic though is never so simple, if you look at the world with tunnel vision all your life you will miss many things. To discourage people who want to compare similar situations is just narrow minded, not "undisciplined".

[strongvoicesforward]

It is undisciplined when things are always being linked to others just so that no headway can be made on an issue. It boggs things down and doesn`t let advancement on individual issues. Things can be tackeled on their own accord.

Smoking pot or cigs is irrelevant to drinking. Reminds me of the childish tantrums kids have when they are grounded:

"Why do I get grounded for staying out after 11? You didn`t ground Julie for not buckling her seatbelt yesterday. Both are dangerous. I don`t think I should get grounded for staying out after 11 until the punishment is also fixed for Julie not wearing her seatbelt."

I wise parent wouldn`t get detracted by such an argument (or debate <snicker>).

[strongvoicesforward]

Most things are never "simple." That is no reason to link them to other things to bog them down. But, those who are obstinate about not wanting to change the status quo know that to link things is the best way to keep things from changing. It clutters up the negotiation process.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

It is undisciplined when things are always being linked to others just so that no headway can be made on an issue. It boggs things down and doesn`t let advancement on individual issues. Things can be tackeled on their own accord.
Smoking pot or cigs is irrelevant to drinking. Reminds me of the childish tantrums kids have when they are grounded:
"Why do I get grounded for staying out after 11? You didn`t ground Julie for not buckling her seatbelt yesterday. Both are dangerous. I don`t think I should get grounded for staying out after 11 until the punishment is also fixed for Julie not wearing her seatbelt."
I wise parent wouldn`t get detracted by such an argument (or debate <snicker>).

It depends entirely what you are talking about or referring too. I also don't think drinking is that different from smoking in many respects- millions of people enjoy it, millions of people die from it, millions of people hate and love it- it causes a lot of social issues and crime in communities across the world. Why do you think drinking is such a different situation from smoking?
If you are referring to the other smoking thread though, why don't you post your "disciplined" disagreements there with what material people post where- for the record, we were discussing the smoking ban before you started telling random stories of smokers coughing up weird stuff and things(by your definition, you were posting "undisciplined" posts, as it was doing nothing to the progress of the debate- you also seemed to partly ignore the very first post of the thread in most of your posts).

[strongvoicesforward]

Why do you think drinking is such a different situation from smoking?

Wrongs come from both. But, that doesn`t mean they are to be linked to each other in deciding to take action. In fact, they should be tackeled on their own accord.

Just as tackling the problem of tobacco should be tackeled separately from the fight on pot because pot is listed as an illegal substance.

Again, linking things bogg things down and is the recipe for non-action. Refer to "child grounding" story above.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Wrongs come from both. But, that doesn`t mean they are to be linked to each other in deciding to take action. In fact, they should be tackeled on their own accord.
Just as tackling the problem of tobacco should be tackeled separately from the fight on pot because pot is listed as an illegal substance.
Again, linking things bogg things down and is the recipe for non-action. Refer to "child grounding" story above.

I think they are linked to each other in taking action- its like a debate saying horses should only legally be allowed to live to 10yrs old, while zebras or ponies can be allowed to live to 20. You are basically saying you shouldn't compare the two as although they are a similar situation, you don't want them to be compared so that a verdict is reached quicker- while i think they should be compared, as it opens up a different perspective on the same situation and questions why they should be treated differently at all. Why should the horse only get 10yrs of life when the zebra is getting 20? Or would you also feel unhappy in that situation is somone brought that example up?
It doesn't "bog down" the debate at all, it opens up new posibilities for thought and opinion. It would be like me saying you were unjustified in even considering to bring up the topic of human slavery in your animal thread.

[strongvoicesforward]

its like a debate saying horses should only legally be allowed to live to 10yrs old, while zebras or ponies can be allowed to live to 20.

Strawman argument. That situation never exists. Try again.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Strawman argument. That situation never exists. Try again.

Its an obvious example, surely you are intelligent enough to comprehend its meaning or the concept of an example? What is a "strawman argument"?

[strongvoicesforward]

It is not a real world example.

Furthermore, ad hominem comments about our intelligence will do nothing to further the conversation. I have not directed comments personally at your intelligence, please show some discipline. Most don`T want to view a conversation sliding down that route.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

It is not a real world example.
Furthermore, ad hominem comments about our intelligence will do nothing to further the conversation. I have not directed comments personally at your intelligence, please show some discipline. Most don`T want to view a conversation sliding down that route.

I agree. But you can understand the meaning of the example, no?
...."sigh"....So basically you disagree with me comparing smoking to drinking, in my own thread? How many other people here think i was unjustified to do this? What do you think about my other example of you doing exactly the same thing but comparing human slavery to animals rights in your animal thread? Would you think i would be wrong in saying that all you were doing is bogging down the verdict of the debate by making "undesciplined" comparisons, because they are separate debates/matters? I think its rather hypocritical of you .

[strongvoicesforward]

...."sigh"....So basically you disagree with me comparing smoking to drinking, in my own thread?

I don`t disagree about comparing the harm of the two. Both certainly do cause harm. That is a given we all agree on. But, to say one shouldn`t be regulated or banned simply because the other isn`t is wrong. It bogs things down to link actions on things with a myriad of other things and actions for those.

How many other people here think i was unjustified to do this?

No need to seek piling on. Others will chime in when they want.

What do you think about my other example of you doing exactly the same thing but comparing human slavery to animals rights in your animal thread? Would you think i would be wrong in saying that all you were doing is bogging down the verdict of the debate by making "undesciplined" comparisons, because they are separate debates/matters? I think its rather hypocritical of you .

Exploitation is exploitation.

A 10 year old is capable of smoking as well as a 50 year old. A male is as well as a female is. That is parallel comparisons of smoking.
Smoking is smoking.

"Smoking" is not "Drinking."

[Tokis-Phoenix]

I don`t disagree about comparing the harm of the two. Both certainly do cause harm. That is a given we all agree on. But, to say one shouldn`t be regulated or banned simply because the other isn`t is wrong. It bogs things down to link actions on things with a myriad of other things and actions for those.

I never said smoking shouldn't be banned or regulated because drinking isn't, so you don't need to twist my words.

Exploitation is exploitation.

Yes but the slave trade in africa is a completely different situation than farming chickens for example, just as much as alchohol is different from tobacco. You were being hypocritical and that is it, your actions are no different than the ones you were acussing me of.

No need to seek piling on. Others will chime in when they want.

I suppose you are right, Maciamo has already compared alchohol and smoking for me in his smoking thread/poll, why don't you go pester him on his "undesciplined" comparisons in his smoking debate now ?

A 10 year old is capable of smoking as well as a 50 year old. A male is as well as a female is. That is parallel comparisons of smoking.
Smoking is smoking.
"Smoking" is not "Drinking."

Oh, right...You wanted "parrallel" comparsions did you now? Why didn't you just say that from the start? And anyways, what does making parallel comparison examples of things have to do with your point?

[strongvoicesforward]

I never said smoking shouldn't be banned or regulated because drinking isn't, so you don't need to twist my words.

Thor in post #6 said, "Why would people ever want to smoke and fill their lungs with that. It is bad for your lungs.." (paraphrased).

and you answered with:

People do an aweful lot of things that are bad for them knowingly, like cutting their wrists or eating too much or drinking themselves silly all the time. But people still have their reasons.

You are right. You didn`t say that specifically. But, why bring up these other "reasons" for other vices? Of course we know people have their reasons. No one does something for no reason at all.

The topic is about smoking -- specifically pot. I admittedly did target smoking in general and should have moved it to the the smoking thread. I wasn`t expecting this to roll like it did here so it started gaining momentum.

Yes but the slave trade in africa is a completely different situation than farming chickens for example, just as much as alchohol is different from tobacco.

Exploitation that causes suffering is exploitation that causes suffering.

Drinking is not smoking. Both do cause harm.

Before we continue this any further, I want to just ask you:

Do you think it is ok to proceed at regulating one without having to address the other side by side at the same time (i.e. linking the two in efforts to regulate either)?

If "Yes," then we need not continue this argument any further. If "No," then tell me why linking the two is necessary or should even be considered when it would only bogg things down too slow in getting results and actions.

[Kara_Nari]

Ok Im going to throw an axe into the above debate....
I smoked 'pot' from the age of 12 to 24...
Initially I started smoking it just because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. I have some really great memories from when I was high.
I wouldnt say that at an early age it was an every day affair, perhaps just on weekends. We all had part time jobs so we werent using our parents money.

When I left school it turned into a more regular habit, with a mixture of other things. This went on for a couple of years, then I moved in with friends and we smoked it every night.
All through my 'career life' I have kept smoking (of whatever substance) to a night time affair... so it got to the point where I needed it just to get to sleep.
When I moved I cut down drastically, I didnt have a regular supply of it, and didnt want to spend the money on it. This yo-yo effect pulled me to and fro for a few years.
Then last year when I moved to Korea, I knew it was going to be difficult and very very expensive for me to get my hands on the stuff, so it worked in my favour.

I wouldnt recommend people to try it... even if I have some positive things to say about it. I was very depressed for months without it, erratic behaviour, uneven sleeping patterns. I was a very happy person with it, but when I stopped cold turkey (literally I stopped an hour before I flew out of NZ)... at first I was ok, but after a couple of months it was really depressing. Not nice.
Luckily im back to normal now, and its hard for me to say whether I would or not try it again... but im better off without it, its cheaper! I dont spend so much money on midnight munchies etc etc.

Anyway thats just my point of view.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Thor in post #6 said, "Why would people ever want to smoke and fill their lungs with that. It is bad for your lungs.." (paraphrased).
and you answered with:
You are right. You didn`t say that specifically. But, why bring up these other "reasons" for other vices? Of course we know people have their reasons. No one does something for no reason at all.
The topic is about smoking -- specifically pot. I admittedly did target smoking in general and should have moved it to the the smoking thread. I wasn`t expecting this to roll like it did here so it started gaining momentum.

Thor basically questioned why people would want to smoke at all because it is quite a damaging habit health-wise, i used the situation examples i did to say that smoking isn't alone in the sense that millions of people do plenty of things that are bad for them. I was making a general point.

Exploitation that causes suffering is exploitation that causes suffering.
Drinking is not smoking. Both do cause harm.

A damaging habit is a damaging habit. I think that would be a better example, if you want to say/suggest all exploitation is the same thing.

Before we continue this any further, I want to just ask you:
Do you think it is ok to proceed at regulating one without having to address the other side by side at the same time (i.e. linking the two in efforts to regulate either)?
If "Yes," then we need not continue this argument any further. If "No," then tell me why linking the two is necessary or should even be considered when it would only bogg things down too slow in getting results and actions.

I honestly can't say- its an entirely different debate anyway, and i think i would be unfair to continue going off-topic like this on somone elses thread.