|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
suneV
Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Location: At the Flop
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| endo wrote: |
| suneV wrote: |
Here's a little.
Effects on the Heart
Within a few minutes after smoking marijuana, the heart begins beating more rapidly and the blood pressure drops. Marijuana can cause the heart beat to increase by 20 to 50 beats per minute, and can increase even more if other drugs are used at the same time.
Because of the lower blood pressure and higher heart rate, researchers found that users' risk for a heart attack is four times higher within the first hour after smoking marijuana. |
So does running. She would criminalize running now? 
Or how about sex, a scary movie, walking up stairs, ect...
| suneV wrote: |
Effects on the Lungs
Smoking marijuana, even infrequently, can cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat, and cause heavy coughing. Scientists have found that regular marijuana smokers can experience the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers do, including:
Daily cough and phlegm production
More frequent acute chest illnesses
Increased risk of lung infections
Obstructed airways
Marijuana contains more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke and because marijuana smokers usually inhale deeper and hold the smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers, their lungs are exposed to those carcinogenic properties longer.
One study found that marijuana smokers were three times more likely to develop cancer of the head or neck than non-smokers. Many researchers believe than smoking marijuana is overall more harmful to the lungs than smoking tobacco. |
How many joints do you have to smoke to equal that of a ciggarette?
Anyways, if you're really worried, just purchase a vaporizor.
http://www.thevolcanovaporizer.com/index.php
| Quote: |
| The Volcano Vaporizer is a revolutionary system that releases the active ingredients from herbs through hot air vaporization. Vaporizers gently heats material just enough to release the active ingredients without combustion. Get all the flavor and active ingredients in a clean vapor without the tar and other toxins found in smoke. |
Problem solved!
| suneV wrote: |
Other Health Effects
Research indicates that THC impairs the body's immune system from fighting disease, which can cause a wide variety of health problems. One study found that marijuana actually inhibited the disease-preventing actions of key immune cells. Another study found that THC increased the risk of developing bacterial infections and tumors. |
Interesting, that's the first I heard about it. But really man, one study is hardly merited as proven fact.
I can bring you countless other studies which show all the positive effects of smoking cannabis.
I think most people who smoke herb know that it doesn't come with negative side effects.
By why are you singling weed smokers? Jesus Christ, more people die from Aspirin overdoses each year.
You can't OD on weed!
And to all those people found with traces of marijuana in their system during automobile crashes:
(a) what other substances were in their system?
(b) since marijuana stays in your system for around 30 day, what evidence do they have that the drivers were smoking weed prior to driving?
(c) were there other factors involved (lack of sleep, bad road conditions) which may have caused the accident?
Too many damn questions dude!
Again weed isn't harmless, but it is a hell of a lot safer than other legal substances out there. So why you gotta pick on WEED???!!!
|
[/quote]
Erm wierd...
I'm not 'picking' on anything, just pointing out some FACTS.
Unlike you I have no emotional attachment to whether weed is as harmful as cigarettes and booze or not.
How do you spell Denyal?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| But it's not as harmful as booze or smokes! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
babtangee
Joined: 18 Dec 2004
Location: OMG! Charlie has me surrounded!
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| endo wrote: |
| Provide me with one, just one source thatr directly ties weed to dead |
One provided source later:
| endo wrote: |
| ...provide a specific case Einstein! |
Ah, so we need to make it more difficult now, eh?
One more source later:
| endo wrote: |
| But it's not as harmful as booze or smokes! |
There is one thing stoners are moreso than boozers and smokers. Dim. Weed makes you dim-witted. Fact. And I think weed is great.
Here's a case in point:
| endo wrote: |
| (b) since marijuana stays in your system for around 30 day, what evidence do they have that the drivers were smoking weed prior to driving? |
Weed stays in your fat tissues for a long time, not your blood stream. Anyone who wasn't bent, or who didn't tend to get bent just a little too often, would recognize that authorities would be checking the blood content of traffic fatalities, not their ass content. What evidence do they have? Give me a break, dude. Weed ain't some mystical life force undetectable by modern science.
Like I said: weed makes you dim. Fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| animalbirdfish wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| animalbirdfish wrote: |
Thanks for the considered reply. I completely agree that this debate (as with a lot of others on this board) too quickly becomes a name-calling contest and very little else.
A couple points, though:
I do, since you mention it, find your argument (bold part) above to be extraordinarily hypocritical, almost arrogantly so. You're willing to acknowledge that, for you, growth substances are superior to other illicit drugs because they supposedly don't alter one's perceptions of the world (however we define that). You're making a value judgment, then, based on your own subjective beliefs and mores, which is fine, if that's where it ended. I wouldn't have any beef with your stance if you could stop at: "I choose not to use drugs, but what others do with their bodies and time is up to them."
What it sounds like you're saying, however, is "I can have my drugs but other people can't have theirs. I'm responsible enough to choose what I do with my body, but other people can't be trusted." |
That wasn't quite my point. My point was, once you start delving into mind alteringsubstancing, judgement is often impaired. Whether it be booze or anything harder, MANY an individual finds it hard to think clearly on the matter. Not only do they have to deal with the physiological aspects of potential addiction, but the psychological ones as well. Couple that with use of a substance that alters perceptions/reason, and you are stepping into a dangerous area IMO.
Basically, if someone starts doing coke, not only do they have to deal with the effects of withdrawal, but they have to be semi-level headed to think to stop in the first place.
Something along the lines of steroids, while some might acknowledge a addiction in regards to the size benefits (but rarely physiological), still leave you mentally unaltered.
For me, that puts those types of substances into different fields.
To put it simply, I'd get into a car with someone who just injected 500ml of test, but I wouldn't with someone who just drank 10 beers, or smokes a couple of joints, or id a line.
((glad we're all being civil about this now - It's an important subject IMO)) |
...nor should you get into a car driven by someone under the influence of those substances. And I'll go you one further: no car should be driven by individuals under the influence of those substances, which is why we have laws that criminalize driving when your blood-alcohol level, for example, exceeds a prescribed legal limit (and even laws that prohibit the use of cell phones while driving). Rather than banning alcohol or cell phones, though, governments disincentivize the use of them in situations where the user becomes a hazard to other people.
A whole host of substances and activities can impair a person's ability to think clearly, be it love, adrenaline, gambling, porn, fame. Addiction is not even limited to chemical substances, and any number of things can spell the end of level-headedness. Rather than making ambition, extreme sports, and the internet illegal, however, governments typically put their time and money into education to help citizens make informed choices. Heath Ledger was apparently an avid surfer, too, but the Australian government didn't prevent him from surfing. Rather, they posted signs that said, "beware of sharks." Seeing that, I'd probably go find a safer hobby, but I wouldn't presume to tell you what to do.
In truth, it's strange for me to be having this dialogue with you on this topic. Like you, I don't do drugs and consider it a shame when talented individuals make bad choices that result in their deaths. The reason I'm willing to engage you here, though, is to counter what seems to be a legislative ambition on your part. As I said before, I'd be happy to leave it at, "not for me, but everyone has to make the choice individually."
It doesn't seem to me, however, that you've really considered the social costs of what you're advocating. Prohibition, aside from making the bootleggers and the Baptists happy, was a failure; and the US drug war has probably accomplished little outside of raising violent crime rates and filling American prisons to overflowing levels. And you want to criminalize caffeine, tobacco, and alcohol? Are you really prepared for the increase in violence - not mention the expense of enforcing such a law - that would result? |
Ah, but I never really elaborated as to my thoughts on enforcement or strategy.
Personally, I'd like to see an education policy directed at the actual effects of said substances.
For example, more studies comparing weed to smokes would be a good thing IMO. If weed is proven less harmful than cigs, why not stiffen regulations on the latter?
Prohibition failed for a number of reasons, and I believe chief among them was a lack of public support. If the public was to be shown substances in a more honest light, who knows, perhaps we'd have booze baned and Grass legalized.
/shrug |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| babtangee wrote: |
Like I said: weed makes you dim. Fact. |
Weed makes me happy. Fact!!!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chris_J2
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Location: From Brisbane, Au.
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dim AND Happy! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
4 months left
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| suneV wrote: |
| Weed is as dangerous as tobacco and alchohol, easilly. |
Utter BRAINWASHING to believe weed is as dangerous as tobacco and alchohol. Either 1) you have been in Korea too long and have adopted the "obey without questioning conformist" ideology. 2) your a religious freak and are an obey without questioning conformist . 3) you have been brainwashed by your gov't or parents 4) you have never used it or used it properly. So no matter what anyone says, you are going to believe what ever has been drilled into your narrow minded brain.
COPS SAY LEGALIZE DRUGS!
After nearly four decades of fueling the U.S. policy of a war on drugs with over a trillion tax dollars and 37 million arrests for nonviolent drug offenses, our confined population has quadrupled making building prisons the fastest growing industry in the United States. More than 2.2 million of our citizens are currently incarcerated and every year we arrest an additional 1.9 million more guaranteeing those prisons will be bursting at their seams. Every year we choose to continue this war will cost U.S. taxpayers another 69 billion dollars. Despite all the lives we have destroyed and all the money so ill spent, today illicit drugs are cheaper, more potent**(this is a myth-see below), and far easier to get than they were 35 years ago at the beginning of the war on drugs. Meanwhile, people continue dying in our streets while drug barons and terrorists continue to grow richer than ever before. We would suggest that this scenario must be the very definition of a failed public policy. This madness must cease!
The stated goals of current U.S.drug policy -- reducing crime, drug addiction, and juvenile drug use -- have not been achieved, even after nearly four decades of a policy of "war on drugs". This policy, fueled by over a trillion of our tax dollars has had little or no effect on the levels of drug addiction among our fellow citizens, but has instead resulted in a tremendous increase in crime and in the numbers of Americans in our prisons and jails. With 4.6% of the world's population, America today has 22.5% of the worlds prisoners. But, after all that time, after all the destroyed lives and after all the wasted resources, prohibited drugs today are cheaper, stronger, and easier to get than they were thirty-five years ago at the beginning of the so-called "war on drugs". With this in mind, we current and former members of law enforcement have created a drug-policy reform movement -- LEAP. We believe that to save lives and lower the rates of disease, crime and addiction. as well as to conserve tax dollars, we must end drug prohibition. LEAP believes that a system of regulation and control of production and distribution will be far more effective and ethical than one of prohibition. We do this in hopes that we in Law Enforcement can regain the public's respect and trust, which have been greatly diminished by our involvement in imposing drug prohibition. Please consider joining us. You don't have to be a cop to join LEAP! Find out more about us by reading some of the articles in our Publications section or by watching and listening to some of our multimedia clips,. You can also read about the men and women who speak for LEAP, and see what we have on the calendar for the near future.
**Myth: Marijuana Is More Potent Today Than In The Past. Adults who used marijuana in the 1960s and 1970s fail to realize that when today's youth use marijuana they are using a much more dangerous drug.
Fact: When today's youth use marijuana, they are using the same drug used by youth in the 1960s and 1970s. A small number of low-THC sample sized by the Drug Enforcement Administration are used to calculate a dramatic increase in potency. However, these samples were not representative of the marijuana generally available to users during this era. Potency data from the early 1980s to the present are more reliable, and they show no increase in the average THC content of marijuana. Even if marijuana potency were to increase, it would not necessarily make the drug more dangerous. Marijuana that varies quite substantially in potency produces similar psychoactive effects.
http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/#potent
From the website -"Law Enforcement Against Prohibition"
http://leap.cc/cms/index.php?name=Content&pid=2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hollywood Defends Ledger In Video "Quash"
By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer
NEW YORK - It was a striking example of Hollywood protecting its own: After an aggressive lobby from powerful film industry figures, "Entertainment Tonight" decided against airing a video that shows the late Heath Ledger hanging out at a party where "drugs" were being taken.
The show said it pulled the story "out of respect for Heath Ledger's family." But don't discount the effect of a lightning-fast campaign launched by a public relations firm that represents many of the stars "Entertainment Tonight" depends upon for stories.
Even some celebrities themselves � Natalie Portman and Sarah Jessica Parker, to name a couple
� called to urge "ET" to pull the plug.
MORE ...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080201/ap_on_en_tv/tv_ledger_video;_ylt=AqZB5iq8sdc3KddMiETlr1QDW7oF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
4 months left
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chris_J2 wrote: |
| Dim AND Happy! |
You're the dim one.
Myth: Marijuana Impairs Memory and Cognition. Under the influence of marijuana, people are unable to think rationally and intelligently. Chronic marijuana use causes permanent mental impairment.
Fact: Marijuana produces immediate, temporary changes in thoughts, perceptions, and information processing. The cognitive process most clearly affected by marijuana is short-term memory. In laboratory studies, subjects under the influence of marijuana have no trouble remembering things they learned previously. However, they display diminished capacity to learn and recall new information. This diminishment only lasts for the duration of the intoxication. There is no convincing evidence that heavy long-term marijuana use permanently impairs memory or other cognitive functions.
Wetzel, C.D. et al., �Remote Memory During Marijuana Intoxication,� Psychopharmacology 76 (1982): 278-81.
Deadwyler, S.A. et al., �The Effects of Delta-9-THC on Mechanisms of Learning and Memory.� Neurobiology of Drug Abuse: Learning and Memory. Ed. L. Erinoff. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse 1990. 79-83.
Block, R.I. et al., �Acute Effects of Marijuana on Cognition: Relationships to Chronic Effects and Smoking Techniques.� Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 43 (1992): 907-17.
Myth: Marijuana Kills Brain Cells. Used over time, marijuana permanently alters brain structure and function, causing memory loss, cognitive impairment, personality deterioration, and reduced productivity.
Fact: None of the medical tests currently used to detect brain damage in humans have found harm from marijuana, even from long term high-dose use. An early study reported brain damage in rhesus monkeys after six months exposure to high concentrations of marijuana smoke. In a recent, more carefully conducted study, researchers found no evidence of brain abnormality in monkeys that were forced to inhale the equivalent of four to five marijuana cigarettes every day for a year. The claim that marijuana kills brain cells is based on a speculative report dating back a quarter of a century that has never been supported by any scientific study.
Heath, R.G., et al. �Cannabis Sativa: Effects on Brain Function and Ultrastructure in Rhesus Monkeys.� Biological Psychiatry 15 (1980): 657-690.
Ali, S.F., et al. �Chronic Marijuana Smoke Exposure in the Rhesus Monkey IV: Neurochemical Effects and Comparison to Acute and Chronic Exposure to Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in Rats.� Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 40 (1991): 677-82. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One metric used to assess the lethality of drugs is by the ratio of the fatal dose to the effective dose. Interesting article on the subject here:
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/50773?print=yes#50979
Check out the following chart to see which recreational drugs are more dangerous than others.
Basically, it appears there is no way a person could ever die as a result of an overdose of marijuana. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
babtangee
Joined: 18 Dec 2004
Location: OMG! Charlie has me surrounded!
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
Basically, it appears there is no way a person could ever die as a result of an overdose of marijuana. |
Anyone who doubts that is obviously much dimmer than any stoner I ever met - and I've met more than a few dim ones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| babtangee wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
Basically, it appears there is no way a person could ever die as a result of an overdose of marijuana. |
Anyone who doubts that is obviously much dimmer than any stoner I ever met - and I've met more than a few dim ones. |
I don't tink I have ever met anyone who serious expouses that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| babtangee wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
Basically, it appears there is no way a person could ever die as a result of an overdose of marijuana. |
Anyone who doubts that is obviously much dimmer than any stoner I ever met - and I've met more than a few dim ones. |
It's just astounding to me, that out of all the drugs on that chart, the one that appears to have dominated the discussion in this thread is weed. Astounding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
babtangee
Joined: 18 Dec 2004
Location: OMG! Charlie has me surrounded!
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| babtangee wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
Basically, it appears there is no way a person could ever die as a result of an overdose of marijuana. |
Anyone who doubts that is obviously much dimmer than any stoner I ever met - and I've met more than a few dim ones. |
It's just astounding to me, that out of all the drugs on that chart, the one that appears to have dominated the discussion in this thread is weed. Astounding. |
Doesn't suprise me at all. Nearly as many bong-heads in the west as there are smokers these days. They're almost both on the same plane of social acceptability. Of course the stoners are gonna get defensive when the subject of illegal drugs is brought up.
Last edited by babtangee on Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:14 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
babtangee
Joined: 18 Dec 2004
Location: OMG! Charlie has me surrounded!
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| babtangee wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
Basically, it appears there is no way a person could ever die as a result of an overdose of marijuana. |
Anyone who doubts that is obviously much dimmer than any stoner I ever met - and I've met more than a few dim ones. |
I don't tink I have ever met anyone who serious expouses that. |
I think you should clarify your statement. It's uncertain what "that" refers to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
