Habitual Cannabis/coke users

Pace2008

Way to completely miss the point.

oppenheimer1

nice1franko wrote: »

The OP, in singling out drug users for being hypocritical in this respect is, in all probability, a hypocrite himself.

My hypocrisy or otherwise is irrelevent and not under discussion. I have never used narcotics, but thats neither here nor there.

The question I posed though is theat whether drug uers feel a sense of guilt when they buy. Its clear now many don't and try and justify it by pointing to other trades which are legal but have questionable morality. Most on the arguments here have a fallacy.

Incidentally I don't have a problem per se with the local hippy growing his own, however those people are in the minority and the legalisation of drugs isn't what this discussion was meant to be about. Most people buy, and the majority of this is imported by dangerous criminals.

For those that blame the government (an easy target, its always us vs them isn't it?), They are of the people, by the people and for the people. They are a direct reflection of our own society, if there was a popular movement for drugs legalisation, the government would be in favour. Its the way democracy works, but thats another thread.

jarhead20

the police nor e.r.u can stop this,drugs will be here no matter what theres always someone big at the top of these criminals to make it happen,from experience its getting worse theres 10 times more drugs and different types coming in in the past decade,and worsening,just look at the headshops that sell the spice and pulse stuff its nearly alright to smoke canabis ,i gotten pulled over and theyv found a bag of weed and gave it back ,its the coke they look for these days exept if its just uniformed gaurds in a squad car then they will bring u to court for enough for 1 spliff even,the detectives will look the other way with hash/weed because by the time it gets to court theyll have a bigger case and will not even turn up to court to give evidence,instant strike out,to some people and certain areas canabis may as well be legal

g5fd6ow0hseima

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Its clear now many don't and try and justify it by pointing to other trades which are legal but have questionable morality. Most on the arguments here have a fallacy.

But then again, most would feel that cannabis (Im guessing most here are potsmokers as opposed to cokeheads) should be legal, and that the government should be willing to endure all this criminality as long as they uphold such stupid laws..... Let the government bear the brunt of the consequences of their own ignorance and stupidity

Doodee

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

For those that blame the government (an easy target, its always us vs them isn't it?), They are of the people, by the people and for the people. They are a direct reflection of our own society, if there was a popular movement for drugs legalisation, the government would be in favour. Its the way democracy works, but thats another thread.

Yes, and as some people say, They ignore us and we ignore them.


Your question was a little nonsensical tbh, and seems to have just been a match to ignite a old fire.
If people are buying drugs then they have already done the risk calculations in their heads, they know who they are buying from and understand the reasons why they must source it from those types of people.

A far better question would be do you feel guilty for not forcing the government to change their stance on drugs and try an alternative solution to fix the problems?

Canis Lupus

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The question I posed though is theat whether drug uers feel a sense of guilt when they buy. .

No

/thread

jarhead20

Kirby wrote: »

Part of the problem is hypocrisy. Smoking and Alcohol both damage you and are legal. I wouldn't classify Weed as any more dangerous.

But drink and smoke are legal. Whether or not they should be legal isn't relevent to the discussion. That battle is lost. That doesn't mean that similar drugs should be legalised because others of similar ilk are already. Weed is harmful. The pro camp refuse to acknowledge that fact and claim that its harmless which is rubbish. It's a mind altering drug and anybody who thinks it does no harm needs to take a good look at themselves.[/quote

not true, iv been smoking canabis and a regular grower for years ,iv been smoking since im 16 and im now 23 all i am is a slightly bit dumber but normal no damage done its weed i smoke aswell not hash so theres probably a difference to the damage but iv went for lung check ups and theyv said iv the lungs of a light smoker when iv known people that have been smoking cigarettes and have done the same test and have been told theyv the lungs of a 60 yrs old and have never touched hash/weed in there life and they wer even younger than me too.

raah!

Proponets of such harsh punishments generally aren't the "habitual users" you speak of here.

jarhead20

life is boring without drugs theres nothing better than getting off work and coming home to a fat joint :P

dearg lady

Doodee wrote: »

A far better question would be do you feel guilty for not forcing the government to change their stance on drugs and try an alternative solution to fix the problems?

Interesting point, it's kind of a catch 22 isn't it, for people to come out publicly and condone something currently illegal might be quite difficult. They might feel it would affect their employment prospects for example.
I'd put money on the fact that there's a lot more people enjoy a spliff than those who turn up at legalise it rallies and marches.

Also, OP, why specifically pot and coke? is it cos they're the most common? (I'm guessing there!)

ScumLord

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Would casual drug users like to see open sale of prescription drugs too?

Like in Spain?


There's nothing wrong or immoral about cannabis or it's use. I like cannabis on many levels, I like the drug, the culture, the music, the films and the comedy it's like a hobby that I can enjoy even when I'm not smoking.


The fact is the prohibition laws created this problem, there was no cannabis problem before prohibition. I'm going to keep using cannabis I don't see why I shouldn't, this government can't do anything right and I'm not going to let my quality of life suffer because their morons.

Luckily home growers are poping up around the country and it will take a grass roots :pac: movement like that to take the drug off criminals so that the average stoner can get good quality fairly priced weed. I will never stop using weed and it's about time the rest of the country took that into account and stopped encouraging the escalation of crime and violence by giving the scum easy money.

Blazer

Pace2008 wrote: »

Way to completely miss the point.

It's kinda like selective hearing..guess you could call it selective reading

oppenheimer1

Doodee wrote: »

Yes, and as some people say, They ignore us and we ignore them.


Your question was a little nonsensical tbh, and seems to have just been a match to ignite a old fire.
If people are buying drugs then they have already done the risk calculations in their heads, they know who they are buying from and understand the reasons why they must source it from those types of people.

A far better question would be do you feel guilty for not forcing the government to change their stance on drugs and try an alternative solution to fix the problems?

Maybe igniting an old fire, but perhaps its a good reminder to these people of the harm they are causing. Incidentally there is no compulsion to use, its a want not a need, so saying they must source it from gangs isn't true.

You do pose an interesting queston which I shall add to my OP though:)

Pace2008

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The question I posed though is theat whether drug uers feel a sense of guilt when they buy. Its clear now many don't and try and justify it by pointing to other trades which are legal but have questionable morality. Most on the arguments here have a fallacy.

And the answer to that was that they feel guilty to the same extent that they'd feel guilty with having a cup of Nescafé - make what you will of that. We live in a top-tier society where our selfish, comfortable existences are propped up by the peons of the world. Why single out drugs specifically? This argument could go in circles.

Talking of going in circles...

For those that blame the government (an easy target, its always us vs them isn't it?), They are of the people, by the people and for the people. They are a direct reflection of our own society, if there was a popular movement for drugs legalisation, the government would be in favour. Its the way democracy works, but thats another thread.

Most of what the masses 'know' about illegal drugs was taught to them by government ad campaigns and government-approved schoolbooks. The majority of people don't employ critical thinking and won't question what they're told. If we had widely available, impartial literature on drugs taught from a school level, detailing the actual dangers and benefits associated with them rather than hyperbolic, shock-tactic nonsense, I think the overall attitude towards narcotics would be a lot different.

As things are the public are still slowly shifting towards a more liberal standpoint. In England, the advice of the Drugs Advisory Council is still being ignored by the government but their reports are receiving a lot of coverage in the press. Reports like this, which contradict the misinformation that's currently out there, hold a lot of weight and are helping to sway public opinion. When the more drug savvy generation becomes the generation in power I think things might start to change.

oppenheimer1

dearg lady wrote: »

Interesting point, it's kind of a catch 22 isn't it, for people to come out publicly and condone something currently illegal might be quite difficult. They might feel it would affect their employment prospects for example.
I'd put money on the fact that there's a lot more people enjoy a spliff than those who turn up at legalise it rallies and marches.

Also, OP, why specifically pot and coke? is it cos they're the most common? (I'm guessing there!)

I chose pot and coke because they're the two most common substances used casually. Perhaps I should have included ecstasy. I didn't include heroin as its not a party drug.

wudangclan

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

My hypocracy or otherwise is irrelevent and not under discussion. I have never used narcotics, but thats neither here nor there.
.

have you ever used a mobile phone,a vital component of which is coltan,90% of which is mined in the congo,the profits of which have fuelled a war in which about 5 million have died 1998,countless of others have been maimed and where rape is used as a weapon in a war for control fought mainly over coltan resources.
you stop using your moblie phone and i'll stop smoking hash.

i abhor the fact that people are killed daily worldwide for control of resources,illegal or otherwise but the transformation of the global economic system is beyond my indivdual capacity.
violence as regards the hash industry in morocco and the grass industry in the netherlands,where most of the product i smoke is sourced,the majority of any violence concerned being between criminals involved in the business.this is as a result of is illegality.the solution to this would be to legalise the industry and not expect people to stop consuming a benign product,which in and of itself is harmless.

Snowie

this man speaks the truth

*NSFW*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFHU1X1PED4

People choose to be bad. :rolleyes:

shoegirl

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I often wonder when I see drugs related threads on this board, and the harsh punishments suggested by posters for the drug gangs, yet some of which have admitted to occasionally using their products.

Actually punishments for casual users are quite harsh also. Even those not convicted because nothing was detected by tests (which does happen if they use relatively new sunstances which have not yet standardised common tests) may face extensive police harassment. Those who are punished face a fine, a criminal record resulting in extra difficulties in travelling and possible exclusion from numerous career paths later in life.

And an increasing number of cannabis users either grow their own (using seeds that might or might not have dubious origins) or use from a friend who grows.

Blazer

wudangclan wrote: »

the solution to this would be to legalise the industry and not expect people to stop consuming a benign product,which in and of itself is harmless.

Harmless?
Now you're talking bull...tonnes of people suffer different side effects from hash depending on their quantities smoke.
I have one mate who got so paranoid after smoking his brains out he went to hang himself.
We spend 2 hours looking all over my village looking for him before we found him..lucky enough he was trying to get drunk before he did it..
So don't say to me it's harmless. Everything drug whether legal or not has side effects..

Kirby

wudangclan wrote: »

not expect people to stop consuming a benign product,which in and of itself is harmless.

This attitude is the problem. You cannot effectively argue for something you do not understand. People refferring to this stuff as harmless....people liken it to no different to eating a sandwhich. This is why the pro legalisation camp isn't taken seriously.

Pace2008

wudangclan wrote: »

the solution to this would be to legalise the industry and not expect people to stop consuming a benign product,which in and of itself is harmless.

Weed isn't harmless. Statements like this undermine the stronger arguments for legalisation.

wudangclan

Kirby wrote: »

This attitude is the problem. You cannot effectively argue for something you do not understand. People refferring to this stuff as harmless....no different to eating a sandwhich. This is why the pro legalisation camp isn't taken seriously.

when i was naturally innately paranoid as a younger lad,when my reality and reality didn't quite match up,sometimes i would smoke dope and an exacerbation of my paranoia (or psychosis if you will) would occur.
since i've had my head screwed on (thanks buddha) i've never suffered any ill effects from cannabis use.
alcohol, on the other hand sends, me around the twist with sever blackouts ,the following day being something like that movie the hangover,so i came to the realisation that alcohol for me is harmful and so i never touch the stuff.
similarly if i had a peanut allergy i wouldn't eat peanuts.those peanuts can kill,it would therefore be wrong to say they are harmless.
i qualify my statement thus.

shoegirl

Pace2008 wrote: »

Most of what the masses 'know' about illegal drugs was taught to them by government ad campaigns and government-approved schoolbooks. The majority of people don't employ critical thinking and won't question what they told. If we had widely available, impartial literature on drugs taught from a school level, detaling the actual dangers and benefits associated with them rather than hyperbolic, shock-tactic nonsense, I think the overall attitude towards narcotics would be a lot different.

The problem with so-called "education" campaigns is that they tend to dwell on worst-case scenarios which will only happen to a percentage of users. People try out drugs due to natural curiosity and on hearing of anecdotes from others. Many will dislike the effects or find them ineffective, but the vast majority of people will not experience the effects described in the shock-tactic worst case scenarios I certainly was taught at school.

This discredits the entire drug-education movement and really makes people question its intentions, however well-intended they make be.

Once discredited, people will depend on peer education, much of which will be positive to neutral. As many of the really nasty side effects of use may only happen randomly or after a period of use, few will get to know first hand of the real danger to them. In fact I think during the real heroin epidemics in Dublin in the 1980s most people really only saw the impacts on the street and in hospital units. A lot of people never saw the impacts for themsevles. Hard to get through to people in those situations. 3rd party descriptions in clinical settings really don't work.

Also a lot of drug education I recall from school was almost entirely focused on heroin, but nothing much about party drugs. Cocaine only mentioned as an aside as it was middle class, and a little on cannabis as they didn't really seem to know where to categorise users. So the drugs that I was to come into contact with in life later on, really I didn't learn about in "drug education" campaigns as a teenager, though I learned lot about drugs I've never encountered.

Pace2008

wudangclan wrote: »

when i was naturally innately paranoid as a younger lad,when my reality and reality didn't quite match up,sometimes i would smoke dope and an exacerbation of my paranoia (or psychosis if you will) would occur.
since i've had my head screwed on (thanks buddha) i've never suffered any ill effects from cannabis use.
alcohol, on the other hand sends, me around the twist with sever blackouts ,the following day being something like that movie the hangover,so i came to the realisation that alcohol for me is harmful and so i never touch the stuff.
similarly if i had a peanut allergy i wouldn't eat peanuts.those peanuts can kill,it would therefore be wrong to say they are harmless.
i qualify my statement thus.

Unless you're a solipsist you should realise that drugs affect everyone differently. That there are people out there that are genetically immune to the carcinogenic effects of smoking doesn't make cigarettes any less dangerous.

Prof.Badass

Kirby wrote: »

But drink and smoke are legal. Whether or not they should be legal isn't relevent to the discussion.If alcohol is legal and that battle is lost. That doesn't mean that similar drugs should be legalised because others of similar ilk are already.

Why not? Surely there should be some consistency in drug-laws?
The fact that a drug is much safer than currently legal ones should surely be a valid argument towards it's legalisation.

Weed is harmful. The pro camp refuse to acknowledge that fact and claim that its harmless which is rubbish. It's a mind altering drug and anybody who thinks it does no harm needs to take a good look at themselves.

Yes, alcohol and weed are both harmful. But by allowing and regulating the sale of pills containing the right sedative /synthetic cannabinoid you could slash the overall harm caused.

wudangclan

discussing the merits or otherwise of cannabis is getting away from the ops question.
i feel as guilty buying hash as i do using a mobile phone today or putting petrol in my bike or eating a banana during the banana wars of a decade ago.
( but i probably should)




.

Oh The Humanity

At the end of the day I am a typical hash smoker and here us the honest truth:

• Whether it is harmless is moot but irrelevant. I am a big girl and I am going to do exactly what I like and take the consequences myself. I don't look to the Gardai, the law makers or the fcuking Government to know what to do. I will do what I want.
• I reject fully the idea that I have blood on my hands, its nonsense.
• Whether its legal or not I will still smoke it. The law is an ass as far as I am concerned.
• I am not riddled with neurosis and do not feel guilty and never will.

This kind of thing is a personal choice. I would view people who nitpick about the origin of drugs or any other commodity they use and get themselves into crisis of supposed morality or questions of 'conscience' over this stuff as having nothing better to worry about.

Years ago there used to be a concept in religion called 'scruples' where people took their 'morality' to the nth degree. It resulted in people self flagellating themselves over killing a flea or some other such tiny event.

Its a form of neurosis verging on mental illness. The universe is made of gazillions of events/connections/associations and relationships between events and things.

Becoming obsessed or fixated on one connection ie gangs and drugs is to ignore the obvious.

Drugs will always be bought and sold with or without gangs.

To try to deny this is to delude yourself in order to support a personal crusade.

Drug users are not responsible for gangs and will never care about the supposed 'issue' so trying to force an ill founded idea such as that on them is always going to fall on deaf ears.

It just isn't so no matter how much you say it is.

Quint

At least the irish gangsters are getting our money instead of the foreign ones:D

Boggle

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

For those that like to smoke the odd spliff of hash/weed or the odd line of coke or whatever. Have you ever thought that you are part of Irelands drug problem and that your use of these substances funds the gangs the gangs that terrorise neighbourhoods in our cities? I often wonder when I see drugs related threads on this board, and the harsh punishments suggested by posters for the drug gangs, yet some of which have admitted to occasionally using their products.

Is it hypocritical for posters to recommend harsh sentences for drug barons, while it would appear that at least some of them use their drugs on at least a semi regular basis?

Do casual users have blood on their hands?

<EDIT>
OR do you feel guilty for not forcing the government to change their stance on drugs and try an alternative solution to fix the problems? Such as grow your own for personal use, and campaign to change the law? One could argue the apathy gives fuel to the gang problem?

Part one: the government and their policies are solely responsible for the increase in organised crime. Look, the evidence is there to suggest legalisation has only positive effects (drop in usage rates / better quality substance / lack of revenue for illegal activities). Yet the government dont want to know. Blood on my hands? No.

Part 2: Most people I know who enjoy a smoke have good careers. None of these are going to make their smoking known for fear of the consequences.

wudangclan

Quint wrote: »

At least the irish gangsters are getting our money instead of the foreign ones:D

unfortunately as most drugs are sourced outside of the country there is a major cash flow away from the irish economy with profits being spent and invested elsewhere and any 'irish' profits being ensconsed away from the hands of the CAB.

Wertz

Not this sh*t again...

I couldn't give a flying f*ck if I'm totally honest. Sorry if that wasn't what the OP and the rest of their supporters wanted to hear. A lot of posters have already made any points I had to contribute and I'm sure if you search back through the forum archive you'll have seen them made over and over again, each time this subject has come up for discussion.
The only violence I have ever experienced due to drugs was whilst drunk by people who were also drunk...and I'm sure that goes for a lot of other people here.
I don't do buy/use what they try and pass off as cocaine here, but if I did I'd be of a similar nonchalant mindset in regard to that as well...

ScumLord

Oh The Humanity wrote: »

I would view people who nitpick about the origin of drugs or any other commodity they use and get themselves into crisis of supposed morality or questions of 'conscience' over this stuff as having nothing better to worry about.

I don't know about that. We get allot of our commodities by stepping on poorer countries, it's not the end users fault though. The end user has to live within a system, we really don't have any control over that system we're completely disconnected from our rulers. Voting once a year(s) is far from being in control of the government.

It's all wrong imo, I don't feel guilty about using drugs though it makes me angry that people can ignore truth and logic and hide behind mass hysteria to hold onto power and money.

jumpguy

rockmongrel wrote: »

So drugs are bad or drug dealers?
I really think a line needs to be drawn between the two, the time of being afraid of drugs is over, up until the 19th century anything was legal, then we got so PC and protective its repugnant.
I would agree dealers are bad, and as for your statement of them living off the state, I'm also of the idea of abolishing the dole

*edit for smiley*

Drug dealers of course. However, someone using heroin or meth, even coke are really doing serious damage to themselves, and probably society who'll have to take care of them when they're ****ed. Atleast weed has no really proven detrimental effects bar the ones you get from smoking unfiltered sliffs.
After reading a few pages of this thread, I can almost see the rationality in legalizing weed anyway.
1. The government would make a killing on taxes
2. Mass production that is availiable on a legal scale would easily undercut drug dealer prices
3. Society will get past the whole "blame the drugs" thing.
Although it would have it's many disadvantages too, such as increased smoking. Also a culture of addiction would increase and Ireland has enough of that. Drug dealers would also push towards more detrimental drugs for their money.

Dragan

Sc@recrow wrote: »

hmm...chocolate/clothes aren't illegal the latest I heard
And apart from mild addiction to chocolate they're harmless

But that is not the point of the first post, the point of the thread is not the weed is illegal, but that the purchase off puts money in the hands of criminals.

Your little rant implied you agree with this, yet you dimiss the implication that the purchase of a legal item, even though it's production involves illegal practices is putting money in the hands of criminals.

I am just confused by your incredible double standard is all.

Quint

As long as Joe Duffy and his merry army of callers are around, it'll never be legalised.
"Drugs are bad.....mmmkay?" that's it. Doesn't matter what positive effect it has, too many people think drugs are bad, put onto this earth by satan to tempt people.

turgon

It doesn't matter how harmful or harmless it is, if someone wants to mess up their life, as some see it, by using cannabis then thats their choice. Who is the government to act as babysitter for adults?


And I'm saying this as someone who has never used drugs btw.

nix

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

For those that like to smoke the odd spliff of hash/weed or the odd line of coke or whatever. Have you ever thought that you are part of Irelands drug problem and that your use of these substances funds the gangs the gangs that terrorise neighbourhoods in our cities? I often wonder when I see drugs related threads on this board, and the harsh punishments suggested by posters for the drug gangs, yet some of which have admitted to occasionally using their products.

Is it hypocritical for posters to recommend harsh sentences for drug barons, while it would appear that at least some of them use their drugs on at least a semi regular basis?

Do casual users have blood on their hands?

<EDIT>
OR do you feel guilty for not forcing the government to change their stance on drugs and try an alternative solution to fix the problems? Such as grow your own for personal use, and campaign to change the law? One could argue the apathy gives fuel to the gang problem?

I smoke weed and i couldnt give a **** who im funding tbh, the goverments fault for making the use of it illegal when its the most harmless recreational "drug" in the world.

And Beer is legal and kills more than all class-a drugs combined.

Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally upon our planet. Doesn't the idea of making nature against the law seem to you a bit . . . unnatural?
I think people need to be educated to the fact that marijuana is not a drug. Marijuana is an herb and a flower. God put it here. If He put it here and He wants it to grow, what gives the government the right to say that God is wrong? - Bill Hicks

Cocaine on the other hand, i agree with you on that one.

Lia_lia

No.

Pace2008

nix wrote: »

I think people need to be educated to the fact that marijuana is not a drug. Marijuana is an herb and a flower. God put it here. If He put it here and He wants it to grow, what gives the government the right to say that God is wrong? - Bill Hicks

Weed alters normal bodily function, it's a drug by definition. And the fact that something grows out of the ground is no indication of its safety.

'I think people need to be educated to the fact that hemlock is not a poison. Hemlock is an herb and a flower.'

I though Bill Hicks was brilliant but he just sounded like a crackpot hippie when he came out with that. (The unedited version).

joseph brand

994 wrote: »

Do you eat chocolate? A quarter of the world's cocoa is harvested by slaves.

Does anybody wear Clothes from a certain very cheap department store, rhymes with 'Pennies'
Are the clothes not made by children?

Ahhh, the list goes on. Our developed world propped up by poverty stricken peoples and you wanna have a go at a man casually, and non-violently smoking his 3 skinned companion while he contemplates the state of the world.

And don't get me started on the chinese slave factories . . .

dearg lady

nix wrote: »

I smoke weed and i couldnt give a **** who im funding tbh, the goverments fault for making the use of it illegal when its the most harmless recreational "drug" in the world.

And Beer is legal and kills more than all class-a drugs combined.

Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally upon our planet. Doesn't the idea of making nature against the law seem to you a bit . . . unnatural?
I think people need to be educated to the fact that marijuana is not a drug. Marijuana is an herb and a flower. God put it here. If He put it here and He wants it to grow, what gives the government the right to say that God is wrong? - Bill Hicks

Cocaine on the other hand, i agree with you on that one.

I agree with the first bit, but why make a distinction between pot and coke? Isn't coke made from coca leaves which grow naturally?

That argument doesn't really hold for me, don't believe in this God character anyway but whoa, that's a whole other debate!

Canis Lupus

dearg lady wrote: »

don't believe in this God character anyway but whoa, that's a whole other debate!

Don't need to capitalise the g then :P

Pace2008

Whether he exists or not, he's still one of the most influential figures in the world.

Almost paradoxical.

dearg lady

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Don't need to capitalise the g then :P

lol, good point!
Old habits die hard eh

nix

dearg lady wrote: »

I agree with the first bit, but why make a distinction between pot and coke? Isn't coke made from coca leaves which grow naturally?

That argument doesn't really hold for me, don't believe in this God character anyway but whoa, that's a whole other debate!

I'm not mad about a god myself, just found it funny as the people who block the legalisation are generally strong christians/catholics whatever.

I'm not 100% on this but im pretty sure coke is a mix of things and made in a lab, nothing natural about it, where weed just grows straight from the ground.

Weed alters normal bodily function, it's a drug by definition. And the fact that something grows out of the ground is no indication of its safety.

'I think people need to be educated to the fact that hemlock is not a poison. Hemlock is an herb and a flower.'

I though Bill Hicks was brilliant but he just sounded like a crackpot hippie when he came out with that. (The unedited version).

Pain killers alter the bodily function, doesnt mean its a bad thing. While smoked I can do everything i can do sober. Not like alcohol which makes us obnoxious and aggressive in nature and can incapacitate us in large quantities.

The scales is very one sided here, just a pity the wrong decision was made with the given :P

Quint

dearg lady wrote: »

I agree with the first bit, but why make a distinction between pot and coke? Isn't coke made from coca leaves which grow naturally?

That argument doesn't really hold for me, don't believe in this God character anyway but whoa, that's a whole other debate!

Well, cocaine is processed from the plant, you don't just split the leaf and get white powder coming out of it! Weed is just the plant dried without anything added

Quint

nix wrote: »

While smoked I can do everything i can do sober. Not like alcohol which makes us obnoxious and aggressive in nature and can incapacitate us in large quantities.

In fairness, i wouldn't want you to drive me to cork after one of amsterdams finest joints!
True that it doesn't make you agressive or obnoxious. Wasn't that a big thing about england in Euro 2000? It was held in Netherlands and Belgium. When england fans were in Netherlands they were no trouble, but in Belgium with their strong beer, they went mental rioting everywhere and smashing up the place!

dasdog

I haven't touched any illicit man made substances in years and I don't miss them one bit but in relation to hash I'm glad I don't buy elements of a flowering plant glued together with shoe polish/glue/camal dung or other adhesives that have been imported by criminal gangs.

-Year round supply
-Excellent quality
-100% natural (well, if you don't use tomato feed or other ferts)
-No unwanted elements introduced
-Very inexpensive
-The strain can be of your choice
-Always fresh if stored correctly
-Great bi-products can be made (oil, bubble hash etc)
-No interaction with dealers/gangs hence no profit for them
-No going out to meet people to purchase

..and it is fun/interesting doing different projects such as topping/sea of green/trying different varieties.

The benefits of indoor cultivation

dearg lady

Quint wrote: »

Well, cocaine is processed from the plant, you don't just split the leaf and get white powder coming out of it! Weed is just the plant dried without anything added

lol, true, that would be quite funny! but it is still from a plant, not completely synthetic. I remember readin once that coca leaves are full of goodness,in South America they probably think we're mad(in our society) for taking only part of it and leaving behind all the vitamin-y goodness!

dasdog

Quint wrote: »

Well, cocaine is processed from the plant, you don't just split the leaf and get white powder coming out of it! Weed is just the plant dried without anything added

The paste is extracted by a process invloving Hydrochloric Acid and Petrol among other substances. Thats before they even begin the power/crystal process.