Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum
Register Forum Rules FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-07-2010, 06:13 PM   #41
Redliner
Franchise Player
 
Redliner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Conquering the world one 7-11 at a time
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher View Post
As for health problems, I think you can argue that alcohol has a very, very bad effect on the health for alcoholics. So are you arguing we should ban cigarettes and alcohol too? If not then your argument is inconsistent.
Cigarettes and large quantities of alcohol have been proven to have an adverse effect on one's health. I can't see them ever been banned outright, but the idea of introducing additional health care user fees for smokers has been floated in the past. Will it ever go anywhere? Who knows. I personally am not against introducing something along those lines for heavy drinkers, smokers, and drug users. If someone is intentionally doing something harmful to their body, why should I have to pay for the extra strain they're going to put on the health care system when the partying catches up to them?
__________________
"There will be a short outage tonight sometime between 11:00PM and 1:00AM as network upgrades are performed. Please do not panic and overthrow society. Thank you."
Redliner is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Redliner For This Useful Post:
Old 08-07-2010, 06:17 PM   #42
Flames Draft Watcher
In the Sin Bin
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeBass View Post
If you can prove that the vast majority of people who smoke weed would also be willing to leap to a more dangerous narcotic and that has never been proven.
Its hard to argue that weed isn't a gateway drug for a lot of people. But I think that is partially because its on the illegal side of the fence right now. And its because its probably the most likely illegal drug for people to try first.

So what happens is people have tried drinking which is legal. They might like it or not. Then they try weed and maybe like it or not. But they will question why is this one illegal and the other legal? Which can end up causing people to question the validity of the fence that separates the legal from the illegal drugs and make them wonder what other interesting drugs have been made illegal and for what motives.

I'm not sure how many people I know who've tried MDMA, mushrooms, etc would have tried them if they hadn't first tried weed.

However, almost nobody I know has tried crack. Nobody I know has tried heroine (that I know of.) And a much lower percentage of people have tried cocaine that I know than MDMA or mush. I don't know anybody addicted to painkillers.

So it seems the people who are willing to try drugs often end up drawing their own line. And some of the hardest drugs still end up on the side of the fence that people are very wary/scared of.

Also the drugs themselves have very different frequencies. Most people I know who've tried mushrooms have zero addictive response. They could try it again in a few weeks, or maybe it will be 5 years before they try it again. MDMA seems much more addictive and yet people seem warier of becoming addicting and frying their brain. Weed is a multiple times a week activity for a fair number of people I know.

I know why some people dispute the "gateway drug" theory. But I've seen it in action myself

I think it would be less of a gateway drug if it was legalized because it wouldn't immediately cause people to question the fence or line separating the illegal drugs from the legal ones.

Last edited by Flames Draft Watcher; 08-07-2010 at 06:22 PM.
Flames Draft Watcher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2010, 06:34 PM   #43
SeeBass
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Exp:
Default

^^^
Pot has never been proven as a gateway drug. If you can find a goverment/medical unbias stat that says so please show me.

It is also impossible to be addicted to shrooms it is a poison that brings the buzz and you cant take it again and again as it doesnt work that way. You need time for your body to recover between buzzes. You may enjoy a weekend on it but you cant go many days straight.

Screwing with people heads has been around since the dawn of man and if we had no narcotics there would still be people standing on their front lawn and spinning till they fell down. To say pot brings one to coke or meth is just an assumption. IMHO that most people who went down the road to harder drugs would have been there even if pot didn't exist.
SeeBass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2010, 07:17 PM   #44
HOOT
Franchise Player
 
HOOT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireFly View Post
If and when it becomes okay to do that, don't you think people will still drive home from that? (Oh, I'm only high; it's not like I'm drunk or anything!)
This happens already and will continue to happen legal or not. As of today people who drive stoned on weed, an illegal drug, actually get off easier than someone who is driving drunk, on a legal drug.

Thinking about things in terms of people hiding smoking weed it may be a little different out here on the coast than in Alberta. People in Alberta react very differently to someone walking down the street smoking a joint than they would in Victoria/Vancouver area.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33 View Post
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
HOOT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2010, 07:20 PM   #45
HOOT
Franchise Player
 
HOOT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeBass View Post
IMHO that most people who went down the road to harder drugs would have been there even if pot didn't exist.
This.

I have never, ever even touched coke, meth or any of that stuff. The hardest drugs I have done are weed and shrooms (less than handful of times in 10 years) and they kinda go hand in hand don't they?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33 View Post
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
HOOT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2010, 07:20 PM   #46
Flames Draft Watcher
In the Sin Bin
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeBass View Post
^^^
Pot has never been proven as a gateway drug. If you can find a goverment/medical unbias stat that says so please show me.
Did it look like I was trying to prove its a gateway drug? I was saying that for me and a lot of people I know, it appears to have been one. Just providing some anecdotal evidence.

I'm not sure how a study would go about proving such a thing anyways. It seems very personal and non-objective why a person decided to try a particular drug. Almost impossible to prove either way I would think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeBass View Post
To say pot brings one to coke or meth is just an assumption. IMHO that most people who went down the road to harder drugs would have been there even if pot didn't exist.
Well my post indicated that in my experience it perhaps helped lead people to middling drugs like shrooms/MDMA and not to the hardest drugs like heroin, crack, etc.

Seems like you are making an assumption too no?

Last edited by Flames Draft Watcher; 08-07-2010 at 07:23 PM.
Flames Draft Watcher is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
Old 08-07-2010, 07:48 PM   #47
Coys1882
First Line Centre
 
Coys1882's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda View Post
so why would marijuana not fall under the same public smoking laws for cigarettes that we have now? it would likely be even stricter, as you could combine those with the public intoxication laws for alcohol so that you couldn't smoke weed anywhere in public
I'm sure it would but we all know how quick the police crack down on people smoking outside restaurants and bars. I've seen smokers getting pissed because they are being hit by the doors as people are trying to come and go.
Coys1882 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:14 PM.

Calgary Flames
2024-25




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021 | See Our Privacy Policy