Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

The WAR on "DRUGS"
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

patchy

Joined: 26 Apr 2005

Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 6:21 am Post subject:

I'll remember all the pro-drug comments next time somebody attacks North Korea for its involvement in the drug trade.

desultude

Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf

Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 7:19 am Post subject:

patchy wrote:

I'll remember all the pro-drug comments next time somebody attacks North Korea for its involvement in the drug trade.

I don't see "pro-drug" comments, I see anti-war on drug and illegalization comments. Calling people opposed to the criminalization of recreational drugs "pro-drug" is the same as the right to life people calling those who support access to legal and safe abortions "pro-abortion". It's an ideologically driven distortion.

patchy

Joined: 26 Apr 2005

Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 6:19 pm Post subject:

desultude wrote:

patchy wrote:

I'll remember all the pro-drug comments next time somebody attacks North Korea for its involvement in the drug trade.

Pro-legalization of drugs then. "Pro-drugs" is shorthand for pro-legalization as "pro-abortion" is shorthand for pro-legalization of abortion.

Many people who advocate legalization are pro-drugs as well as they think the drugs are beneficial to them in some way and have minimal/no harm associated with their use and that's why they take them or have taken them in the past and want to take them in the future without any legal hassles.

desultude

Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf

Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 8:44 pm Post subject:

Quote:

"Pro-drugs" is shorthand for pro-legalization as "pro-abortion" is shorthand for pro-legalization of abortion.

Yeah, right. No agenda at all. Rolling Eyes

Satori

Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all

Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 12:03 am Post subject:

patchy wrote:

Many people who advocate legalization are pro-drugs as well as they think the drugs are beneficial to them in some way and have minimal/no harm associated with their use and that's why they take them or have taken them in the past and want to take them in the future without any legal hassles.

And in the case of pot at least, we are correct. Unless of course you'd like to outline for me the vast social damage done by pot.

Now Im not saying totally and utterly harmless. Beleive me, I've studied pot so I can deal with these types of discussions. Pot can cause short term memory loss, lack of motivation, depression, and can trigger schizophrenia if a person already that way inclined. It also carries obvious increase in the risk of lung cancer. But the key point to make about this is that you have to use it extremely to even get these effects. The average user smoking socially doesnt come even close to the levels of use required to get these effects. An three joints a day smoker might possibly reach these effects in a few years. However, alcohol produces far far more devastation if used to excess daily. Clearly the government is not really concerned with out health, or alcohol and tobacco would be illegal. If the government deems that we are capable of moderating our alcohol use then pot should be the same. The vast majority of people use alcohol sensibly and socially, so why should they be punished because some people mess up thier lives with it? The same goes for pot. There will always be abusers, but they are the minority, and the majority should not be punished for thier actions.

Unless you can show me how pot is more damaging than alcohol, you really have no case for prohibition.

patchy

Joined: 26 Apr 2005

Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 2:40 am Post subject:

Satori wrote:

patchy wrote:

That argument has been tried before many times and it doesn't hold water, the argument is yes , xxxx is bad and can do this and that but alcohol and smoking are worse or no better than xxxx and are legal so xxxx should be legalized.

I agree that smoking and alcohol are bad and cause huge amounts of problems in society and in an ideal world they should be banned but they haven't been, but that doesn't mean we should add xxxx to the problems already caused to society by alcohol and smoking.

Alcohol and smoking are also addictions with adverse health effects and negative social impact but these two addictions are distinguished by the fact that they have been used for eons and are a deeply entrenched part of society to the point that prohibiting their use now would not work out. But this is not the case with illegal drugs, it is not too late to prohibit them.

Besides, why would you want to ADD to the problems of society (the social cost, the financial cost, the personal cost) given that alcohol and smoking cause enough problems as it is?

I'd rather not have to deal as a citizen with the problems caused by legalization of drugs on top of what I as a citizen have to deal with already in terms of all the problems caused by people drinking and smoking - and society is already stretched enough as it is mopping up the problems of those addicted to smoking and drinking ....

Saying marijuana is "not totally and utterly harmles" is worlds apart from admitting it can cause "short term memory loss, lack of motivation, depression, and can trigger schizophrenia if a person already that way inclined. It also carries obvious increase in the risk of lung cancer ......" (as well as the risk of causing permanent changes in the brain.)

I don't want my tax dollars to support people who have to go on welfare because they lack motivation to find a job or keep a job or train for one and all the hundred myriad other problems associated with the use of these drugs, nor do I want to pay for the extra health cost burden that goes along with it.

And as far as I'm concerned the people who rant about North Korea trafficking in drugs but condone the use of marijuana or whatever want to eat their cake and eat it too. You can't condemn North Korea for supplying a demand that's obviously out there - if people don't like it they can erase the demand part of the equation. The people in the west want drugs - and the people in North Korea want food and arms for self-protection - a fair enough exchange (Adam Smith would be proud) - you can't blame North Korea for exploiting the decadence of the west - especially when the west thinks it's morally superior to a country like North Korea.

Satori

Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all

Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 3:46 am Post subject:

Satori wrote:

And in the case of pot at least, we are correct. Unless of course you'd like to outline for me the vast social damage done by pot.

Unless you can show me how pot is more damaging than alcohol, you really have no case for prohibition.

Quote:

We`ve also heard that argument many times before. My argument does hold water if you believe in fairness, which I`m sure you do. There are many people out there who like to smoke pot, and would rather do that than drinking. They are otherwise law abiding citizens, but they are made into criminals for this insignificant social vice. Your argument is based on the fact that legalising pot would lead to a significant increase in social problems caused by the drug. I will go on to show why this is false.

Quote:

Alcohol and smoking are also addictions with adverse health effects and negative social impact but these two addictions are distinguished by the fact that they have been used for eons and are a deeply entrenched part of society to the point that prohibiting their use now would not work out. But this is not the case with illegal drugs, it is not too late to prohibit them.

News flash! Pot has also used for eons all over the world. It is only since very modern times that it has become illegal. If we look at the hashish smoking culture of the middle east and India, the pot smoking culture of south america, and Africa, we can see that pot was around WAY before alcohol, and has been an integral part of ritual ceremonies in almost all tribal groups since the beginning of civilisation. Back then it didn`t cause social problems because it had a place and a context for use that was socially supported. Pot is now illegal for political reasons, not social reasons.

Quote:

Besides, why would you want to ADD to the problems of society (the social cost, the financial cost, the personal cost) given that alcohol and smoking cause enough problems as it is?

I'd rather not have to deal as a citizen with the problems caused by legalization of drugs on top of what I as a citizen have to deal with already in terms of all the problems caused by people drinking and smoking - and society is already stretched enough as it is mopping up the problems of those addicted to smoking and drinking ....

Saying marijuana is "not totally and utterly harmles" is worlds apart from admitting it can cause "short term memory loss, lack of motivation, depression, and can trigger schizophrenia if a person already that way inclined. It also carries obvious increase in the risk of lung cancer ......" (as well as the risk of causing permanent changes in the brain.)

I don't want my tax dollars to support people who have to go on welfare because they lack motivation to find a job or keep a job or train for one and all the hundred myriad other problems associated with the use of these drugs, nor do I want to pay for the extra health cost burden that goes along with it.

You are assuming that legalisation will lead to a notable increase in usage, and that is simply not true. Here`s the thing that conservatives don`t understand about pot. The type of person who is inclined to smoke pot is the type of person who will do it anyway, laws or no. Anyone who wants to smoke pot is already doing it. We are independant rational thinkers. And when enough intellegent people decide a law is rediculous, they start to ignore it. And pot smoking is massive, everywhere. In the US, a notably conservative country in many ways, close to 50% of adults have tried it. I won`t make this into a stat fest unless you call my veracity into question, but believe, I`ve looked at this and the number are with me. Conservative would like to paint this picture of pot as a drug of the neer-do-well, down at heal, fringe type of outcast or dissenter, a radical loser artist type who probably was or still is a hippy and maybe even a commy too. It`s rubbish. Pot is smoked socially up to the highest eschelons of society, it`s hip with the New York fashion set, movie makers, advertising execs, designers, architects, even doctors and lawyers ( I will add that a practicing surgeon is likely not to indulge, for the same reason s/he won`t drink coffee, as a totally steady hand is a must ) and businessmen. Good wholesome family oriented people with jobs and responsibilities sometimes smoke pot on the weekend, get used to this fact! It ain`t going away. And what is manifest from the evidence, is that normal well balanced people who use the drug socially and responsibly, in the same way most of us use alcohol, encounter no major negatives, and it certainly does not lead to social breakdown.

Now let`s address you idea of the cost of increased medical problems. As stated, people who want to use pot are already using it. Next, the majority use it sensibly in the same way we use alcohol. At this level of use there are NO medical concerns. You have to smoke EXTREMELY to reach the levels required for noticable medical issues. So because people who want to are already doing it and because the majority don`t smoke it anywhere NEAR enough to come close to a medical problem, we will not see any significant increase in costs to the tax payer if pot is legalised.

Now, why is pot illegal? We`ve proved it`s not due to health risks. Normal use doesn`t cause health risks, and if the government was concerned with our health then alcohol and tobacco would be illegal. Alcohol has a something like 70% statistical correlation with such things as burglary, assault, and road death. Not to mention the obvious mortality rates involved with consistant heavy use. Tobacco is WELL documented as a MAJOR killer every year. The differences between the damage done by alcohol and tobacco compared to pot are not small, they are STAGGERING. So health is out the window.

Pot is illegal because it can be grown and sold easily and independantly, and thus it would be hard for the government to regulate and to tax. Plus, the war on drugs is extremely lucrative for the police is the US. They make a bust, seize the drugs, and then sell them off again to the mob at a good rate.

Lastly, pot causes people to think independantly, creatively, laterally, to question things, to become spiritual, to accept authority less easily and blindly. This is not good for a government bent on control of the population. They would much rather we were mollified, pacified, comatose on alcohol and tv sports than actually asking philosophical questions about the way we live as a society.

And that`s that my friend. You`ve been spanked so hard you almost liked it. And there`s plenty more where that came from...

patchy

Joined: 26 Apr 2005

Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 6:46 am Post subject:

Quote:

You are assuming that legalisation will lead to a notable increase in usage, and that is simply not true.

It is true. Countries like Sweden (and the Netherlands) have admitted their liberal attitudes to drugs experimentation have failed, and some like Sweden have done a 180 degree turn which now urges other countries to be tough on drugs including marijuana.

Cigarette smoking is quite prevalent among people I know in South Korea, almost all the male relatives of friends I know smoke and smoking is legal. Among these same people I don't know of one person who uses marijuana. And marijuana is illegal.

If marijuana becomes legal, it will become just like nicotine -- widely used as an upper, a stress-reliever. More people will be inclined to try it as it would not have the prohibitions placed on it to discourage people from experimenting with it.

Quote:

Here`s the thing that conservatives don`t understand about pot. The type of person who is inclined to smoke pot is the type of person who will do it anyway, laws or no.

I think the same qualities that make an average person vulnerable to being a cigarette smoker will operate to make that person a pot-smoker if marijuana use is legalized.

Quote:

Anyone who wants to smoke pot is already doing it.

And the people who want to smoke it and can get access to it will increase as people will be more inclined to try it as the legal prohibitions of using it will be lifted (as I've already said). And the incidence of health problems attendant on smoking it will increase: lung cancer, bronchitis .... marijuana causes reduced lung capacity more than nicotine does which means the incidence of severe bronchitis and emphysema will increase, which means more people filling hospital wards hooked up on oxygen machines, and health costs rising along with it. Marijuana is much, much worse than nicotine for the respiratory system.

Quote:

We are independant rational thinkers.

No, you are the opposite. You are sheep. Drugs turn you into sheep and make you think like sheep. As you have admitted it lowers motivation. It can trigger schizophrenia in those predisposed. It causes personality changes (often for the worse as people around them can attest to) as the drug causes permanent changes in the brain. Dissect the brain of a long-term sufferer and you will find it full of brown sludge, the residue of the drug (tetra-hydrocannabinoids) in the brain.

Quote:

And when enough intellegent people decide a law is rediculous, they start to ignore it.

You haven't proved pot smokers are intelligent. It doesn't take much brains to start smoking weed. It might make the individual temporarily high and think more vividly as the drug alters brain chemistry but with repeated use tolerance sets in and the person has to use more and more of the substance to obtain the same high - after some time, the person has to use it on a daily basis just to feel normal - if they don't, they feel stressed, jumpy, anxious, depressed until they use it again - this is the basis of the addiction - and while this goes on, they become (more) stupid as the drug destroys brain cells and alters brain chemistry permanently.

Quote:

And pot smoking is massive, everywhere. In the US, a notably conservative country in many ways, close to 50% of adults have tried it.

Compared to alcohol and nicotine use, pot smoking is not 'massive'; how many people do you know who drink or smoke cigarettes? How many people do you know who smoke weed? Do your parents smoke weed? Do your uncles, aunts etc? How many drink alcohol at least once a week, how many smoke cigarettes? As I've said I know many close associates who drink and smoke cigarettes, none of them have ever smoked weed.

Quote:

I won`t make this into a stat fest unless you call my veracity into question, but believe, I`ve looked at this and the number are with me.

Maybe in your social group everyone is doing it but that's just your subgroup and not necessarily a reflection of society at large.

Quote:

Conservative would like to paint this picture of pot as a drug of the neer-do-well, down at heal, fringe type of outcast or dissenter, a radical loser artist type who probably was or still is a hippy and maybe even a commy too. It`s rubbish. Pot is smoked socially up to the highest eschelons of society, it`s hip with the New York fashion set, movie makers, advertising execs, designers, architects, even doctors and lawyers

There is nothing hip about having reduced lung fitness and huffing and puffing after walking one kilometer; or having reduced motivation and missing work and getting fired; or getting lung cancer; or losing brain cells; getting schizophrenia; being on an oxygen tank because you've got endstage bronchitis .......

Quote:

( I will add that a practicing surgeon is likely not to indulge, for the same reason s/he won`t drink coffee, as a totally steady hand is a must )

I wouldn't care if a surgeon had a cup of coffee before he did an operation so long as it didn't make his hand unsteady; I wouldn't want to be operated on by someone who gets regularly stoned on marijuana or other drug (or alcohol).

Quote:

and businessmen. Good wholesome family oriented people with jobs and responsibilities sometimes smoke pot on the weekend, get used to this fact! It ain`t going away.

Maybe in your neighborhood; not in mine. "Wholesome" and being stoned on weed do not equate.

Quote:

And what is manifest from the evidence, is that normal well balanced people who use the drug socially and responsibly

Well, they're not going to be 'normal' or 'well-balanced' for long if that's the case: stoned out, strung out, weird personality changes - veering to schizophrenia if not outright ending up schizophrenic, less sharp in their thinking as brain cells are destroyed, unmotivated, less responsible, neglecting oneself and one's family as more and more energy is expended in taking care of the addiction ..... and the movie stars and other celebrities are rich enough that their money can take care of the problems caused by their drug use and so enable them to maintain their image of being glamorous -- but for those not as fortunate .......

Quote:

, in the same way most of us use alcohol, encounter no major negatives, and it certainly does not lead to social breakdown.

I wouldn't downplay the effect of alcohol on society; not when one out of eleven people in America are estimated to fit the criteria for being an alcoholic or alcohol-dependent; and 16 billion dollars (a conservative and probably now outdated figure) in cost to US society can be attributed to alcohol use (health costs, loss in productivity, welfare costs, vehicular accidents, insurance etc etc...) And in South Korea, alcohol dependency is no small problem -- the evidence is all around you -- South Korea doesn't need a marijuana problem as well - even though all the 'hip' people (according to Satori) might be using it.

Quote:

Now let`s address you idea of the cost of increased medical problems. As stated, people who want to use pot are already using it.

And if it's legalized, the number of regular users will rise as more people will take it up just as they take up cigarette smoking and the incidence and costs of health problems - lung cancer, bronchitis, reduced lung fitness, personality disorders, schizophrenia, other brain diseases ... will rise along with it. I've already alluded to the welfare costs of supporting drug addicts who are suffer from amotivational personality disorder and can't work .. plus the inevitable subsidization by taxpayers for a drug to help people overcome their addiction - a marijuana patch or some pill ......

Quote:

Next, the majority use it sensibly in the same way we use alcohol. At this level of use there are NO medical concerns.

I wouldn't say that; not when marijuana has been shown to reduce lung fitness more than nicotine-smoking.

Quote:

You have to smoke EXTREMELY to reach the levels required for noticable medical issues. So because people who want to are already doing it and because the majority don`t smoke it anywhere NEAR enough to come close to a medical problem, we will not see any significant increase in costs to the tax payer if pot is legalised.

Not at all; like all drugs only minute amounts can alter the neurochemistry of the brain and such being the nature of the drug in that it creates tolerance for it, it is inevitable that the average user will increase their use as they will need to ingest more and more to get the same effect; people underestimated the dangers of nicotine-smoking in the past, and look at all the bad press cigarette smoking gets these days (and rightly so) and how much this drug costs the taxpayer. And cigarette smoking is highly addictive.

Quote:

Now, why is pot illegal? We`ve proved it`s not due to health risks.

You haven't proved any such thing. you've even admitted it causes lung cancer, lack of motivation and so on ......

Quote:

Normal use doesn`t cause health risks, and if the government was concerned with our health then alcohol and tobacco would be illegal.

Tell that to all the longterm smokers coughing their guts out ...... noone except for the very honest is going to admit their use is not 'normal' ...... if it's without risks or only has low risk, then why not encourage your kids to smoke it, or your nieces or nephews if you don't have any kids, as it's so very 'hip', makes them smarter .......

Quote:

Alcohol has a something like 70% statistical correlation with such things as burglary, assault, and road death. Not to mention the obvious mortality rates involved with consistant heavy use. Tobacco is WELL documented as a MAJOR killer every year. The differences between the damage done by alcohol and tobacco compared to pot are not small, they are STAGGERING. So health is out the window.

And maybe because pot smoking is regulated by current laws? And if they weren't, the damage done by pot would also be STAGGERING .....

Quote:

Pot is illegal because it can be grown and sold easily and independantly, and thus it would be hard for the government to regulate and to tax.

The government taxes smokers and drinkers to (theoretically) discourage their use as the government is well aware how much these drugs cost society --- health costs, car accidents, welfare costs -- I doubt the ease of cultivating pot at home and the ability of people to therefore evade paying taxes on pot is the reason the government makes it illegal -- even if they were able to collect all the taxes for it (provided they could find enough people not amotivated, stoned, lying around at home attached to a bong, to work), the money collected would not be enough to fund all the costs - health-related, social etc - direct and indirect - associated with its widespread use.

Quote:

Plus, the war on drugs is extremely lucrative for the police is the US. They make a bust, seize the drugs, and then sell them off again to the mob at a good rate.

There of course is corruption in the police force but not on the scale that you are implying.

Quote:

Lastly, pot causes people to think independantly, creatively, laterally, to question things, to become spiritual, to accept authority less easily and blindly.

I've heard the "Drugs make me smart" defense before. This is the initial effect of the drugs, after a while when tolerance has developed, people need to smoke the drugs just to THINK.

Quote:

This is not good for a government bent on control of the population.

On the contrary it is very easy to control people who are amotivated as people are when they use pot. People stoned and lying around don't put up much of a resistance; that's why the British were able to take over control of China; they got the Chinese hooked on opium.

Quote:

They would much rather we were mollified, pacified, comatose on alcohol and tv sports than actually asking philosophical questions about the way we live as a society.

I don't think you have to be one or the other; just because you don't use pot doesn't mean you are going to start drinking or increase your intake of alcohol (or start watching TV sports) ... maybe pot smokers spend their time wheezing and pontificating in their mind-altered state philosophical questions about the way people live in society -- but if they perchance happened to solve the riddle of life, I doubt they would have enough motivation or energy to do anything about it.

fusionbarnone

Joined: 31 May 2004

Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 5:39 pm Post subject:

Drugs are for mugs!

igotthisguitar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:33 am Post subject:

patchy wrote:

Quote:

You are assuming that legalisation will lead to a notable increase in usage, and that is simply not true.

Cigarette smoking is quite prevalent among people I know in South Korea, almost all the male relatives of friends I know smoke and smoking is legal. Among these same people I don't know of one person who uses marijuana. And marijuana is illegal.

If marijuana becomes legal, it will become just like nicotine -- widely used as an upper, a stress-reliever. More people will be inclined to try it as it would not have the prohibitions placed on it to discourage people from experimenting with it.

Your line of reasoning is really ... uhhh ... what can i say ... "patchy"?

Maybe you should stop to consider the number of people who WON'T SMOKE cigarettes and yet have no problem rolling up / sharing the occasional spliff. They same goes for everyone who drinks alcohol. MANY prefer pot.

Why don't your Korean chums smoke pot? It's not too difficult to figure out.

1) It's not readily available, & 2) they've never actually been exposed to, while in its place a mountain of indoctrination, phony scare tactics and a powerful �� social stigma thanks to Korea's typical brand of group-think brainwashing Twisted Evil

Yes friends, smoking pot will lead you to love King Jong-Il, or run off and join Al-Quaeda.

So, hey ... bring on the soju !!! I wanna fight, pass out, piss myself & puke !!!

Prohibition of virtually any kind is itself clearly the greatest crime.

Grass (1999)

http://www.eonline.com/shared/Eonline/Reviews/Movies/Clips/g/grass.ram

You don't have to be stoned to enjoy Grass ... but it might help. Narrated by Woody Harrelson — a renowned cannabis crusader — this Canadian documentary traces the history of marijuana prohibition in the U.S. with a cinematic bowl packed full of archival footage, snazzy cartoon visuals, and some sobering statistics.

It's fast-paced, funny, colorful, and informative, yet the profoundly pro-pot prejudice is unlikely to convert non-tokers to hemp's cause. Stoners may respond with cheers, but audiences looking to score a thoughtful, balanced debate on the demon weed may find Grass more of a bad trip than a pleasant high.

The film begins with the introduction of pot into the U.S. in the early 20th century via Mexican immigrants. A humorous clip from a silent film entitled High on the Range, in which a cowboy experiments with marijuana with tragic results, is offset by narration that points out that early attempts to ban the weed were more about controlling the Mexican immigrants than the drug itself. It's a good point, and director Ron Mann (Comic Book Confidential) continually hammers home the idea that anti-marijuana efforts have typically resulted from ulterior motives, be they racial, cultural, or political.

The primary villain of Grass is Harry J. Anslinger, first head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics who relied on hyperbolic propaganda to keep public opinion against marijuana until his retirement in the early 1960s. Largely through his efforts, the federal government passed the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, which effectively made pot illegal.

"Overnight a new class of criminals was created," intones Harrelson ominously. Not even celebrities were exempt from the anti-pot crusade, with stars like Gene Krupa and Robert Mitchum being caught in the anti-dope net. The film mercilessly skewers Anslinger and his efforts, using cartoon titles to mock the changing "truths" about pot that he disseminated: that it makes you kill, that it makes you insane, that it leads to heroin use, Communism, Satanism, etc. Many snippets from cautionary drug films are used to ironically illustrate the hysteria of the anti-marijuana rhetoric.

Besides the requisite Reefer Madness moment ("Faster! Play it faster!"), there are some truly ludicrous clips including one of a hot dog seller who deals dope by hiding joints in buns; hopped-up teens who drink from broken bottles, laughing obliviously as they swallow broken glass; and a hysterically stoned-out-of-his-mind Sonny Bono preaching a don't-do-drugs message.

Here's the entire movie ... Wink

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/grass_1.rm
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/grass_2.rm

igotthisguitar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)

Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 3:18 am Post subject:

Harmless habit or dangerous drug? By Chris Summers BBC News The UK Home Office is expected to announce within days whether it will ban khat, a narcotic shrub which men in the Somali and Yemeni communities have traditionally chewed. Khat is illegal in the United States but is entirely uncontrolled in UK. Is it really any more dangerous than tobacco or alcohol? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4615415.stm

igotthisguitar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)

Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 11:30 pm Post subject:

Any bets on how long until the White House acts to rub this guy out? Evo Morales Bolivia's new indigenous president. The FIRST indigenous president in 200 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales Morales is the left-wing leader of Bolivia's cocalero movement, a loose federation of coca leaf-growing campesinos who are resisting the efforts of the United States government to eradicate coca in the province of Chapare in southeastern Bolivia. Morales is also leader of the Bolivian political party Movement Toward Socialism (Movimiento al Socialismo, with the Spanish accronym MAS, meaning "more").

igotthisguitar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 6:42 am Post subject:

WARNING - you are about to lose the right to free access of vitamins and minerals UNLESS you fight now! Please read and then contact your representative. Read and Act Now! http://www.thenhf.com/newsflash_49.htm IF YOU USE VITMAINS, MINERALS AND HERBS WATCH THIS VIDEO NOW. WE BECOME SILENT http://interface.audiovideoweb.com/lnk/ca25win25003/Misc/WeBecomeSilent.wmv/play.asx http://www.atmantechnologyclub.com/media.htm

khyber

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 7:53 am Post subject:

wow patchy...that is the strangest rebuttal post i've ever seen...
and for the most part..nothing i want to touch with a barge pole...
but a few quipes:

Quote:

And the incidence of health problems attendant on smoking it will increase: lung cancer, bronchitis .... marijuana causes reduced lung capacity more than nicotine does which means the incidence of severe bronchitis and emphysema will increase, which means more people filling hospital wards hooked up on oxygen machines, and health costs rising along with it.

1)chronic throat sicknesses ARE common. But lung cancer?...not likely to increase really since you'd have to smoke about several JOINTS to equal a pack of cigarettes (with that being more than enough for a day)....and that doesn't EVEN include cleaner methods like bongs or vaporizers (said to equal about the SAME as a cigarette).
2) Asthma: I have known several asthmatics who have benefitted from pot...long term; one has refused to quit. There have been studies PROVING a positive relationship in all but a few instances of bronchial asthma
3) emphysema ALSO be positively dealt with with LIGHT pot smoking.
4) pot STILL hasn't been linked, BY ITSELF to ONE DEATH.

Quote:

Drugs turn you into sheep and make you think like sheep

not really. Out of curiousity...how?

Quote:

It can trigger schizophrenia in those predisposed.

so can over consumption of caffeine

Quote:

Dissect the brain of a long-term sufferer and you will find it full of brown sludge, the residue of the drug (tetra-hydrocannabinoids) in the brain.

Now this is SO false i can't even imagine where you could have got it from. Not even D.A.R.E. has information that misleading.

You description of the "pot addict" is a rather...uhm....RARE occurance. Besides that, I know MANY recreational smokers back home who have started and stopped smoking or who are preparing to stop, OR who can stop and start AT WILL. I have several pot headed friends (and chances are you do too) who have come to korea and stopped NO PROBLEM.

Quote:

How many people do you know who smoke weed? Do your parents smoke weed? Do your uncles, aunts etc?

The question isn't for OUR family...it's for YOUR family. I mean, 50% have tried it...there's a good chance.

Quote:

As I've said I know many close associates who drink and smoke cigarettes, none of them have ever smoked weed.

They just haven't told you patchy. It's not something people go around yelling after all. ESPECIALLY to people who are VEHEMENTLY against the drug....<wink wink>

Quote:

There is nothing hip about having reduced lung fitness and huffing and puffing after walking one kilometer;

football players, and basketball players both take regular hoots. In my university (a christian university so you know...) there were 4 full on potheads on the basketball team and at least EVERYONE smoked a few times throughout the season.

Quote:

Maybe in your neighborhood; not in mine. "Wholesome" and being stoned on weed do not equate.

It's too bad you think like that guy. Cause if you think that being drunk on the booze, laced on the caffiene, or buzzing of the nicotine are acceptable highs (for no REAL reason other than their LEGALITY), then you should probably do the ol' beastie boy thing and check your head.

Quote:

..... and the movie stars and other celebrities are rich enough that their money can take care of the problems caused by their drug use and so enable them to maintain their image of being glamorous -- but for those not as fortunate ......

What you spend in one night at a bar can keep you high on the marijuana for a month back home. Don't argue it's a rich man's drug.

Your arguments are getting REALLY repetetive (i think i've counted schizophrenia and 5 different paragraphs)..

Quote:

South Korea doesn't need a marijuana problem as well - even though all the 'hip' people (according to Satori) might be using it.

The stress level of koreans is astronomical and to claim that booze has nothing to do with it would probably be kidding yourself.
THAT is why booze should get the boot. Between you me and the wall, I think the general mental health of koreans (a population with a rather small schizophrenic "market"), would be drastically improved if the herb were more prevelant.

Quote:

It is true. Countries like Sweden (and the Netherlands) have admitted their liberal attitudes to drugs experimentation have failed,

I've heard this quoted by anti-drug guys but in fact, the opposite is true of the netherlands.
If it isn't working, one has to wonder why so many of their neighbours are going (or trying to go) on board...
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htmit's from 2001 but for an idea.
I'll tell you Nl is NOWHERE NEAR doing an about face....
and sweden? sure the pot is being controlled....to bad the hard disgusting stuff like methamphetamines and E made a big comeback.

Quote:

I wouldn't say that; not when marijuana has been shown to reduce lung fitness more than nicotine-smoking.

strange that you would say THAT then....

Quote:

that's not at ALL what he's arguing.
1) He's saying that you have to smoke A LOT to have noticable medical issues. Completely true.
2) You counter that it "alter[s] the neurochemistry of the brain" and yet fail to mention HOW it does so AVERSELY. talking, walking, being in love, reading a news paper, these ALL affect the neurochemistry of the brain, so you are going to have to be more specific.

IGNORE THE REST OF THE POST ANYONE AND JUST READ THIS LINK. this is the place to go for info on drugs in europe! looks pretty coool.
http://dataprofiles05.emcdda.eu.int/en/home-en.html?CFID=1055050&CFTOKEN=e908324579e426f1-076AFF87-051D-0F93-41B92E734FABEC02&jsessionid=2e30f48e06997a7e7676
you'll note a couple things:
pot in schools in NL and SE are VIRTUALLY identical despite completely POLAR approaches to the drug war. What is strange is how there are NO numbers for swedes THREE biggest drug problems...hm..

Quote:

Tell that to all the longterm smokers coughing their guts out

Tell me what you ACTUALLY know about the drug?

khyber

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 7:54 am Post subject:

wow patchy...that is the strangest rebuttal post i've ever seen...
and for the most part..nothing i want to touch with a barge pole...
but a few quipes:

Quote:

Drugs turn you into sheep and make you think like sheep

not really. Out of curiousity...how?

Quote:

It can trigger schizophrenia in those predisposed.

so can over consumption of caffeine

Quote:

Dissect the brain of a long-term sufferer and you will find it full of brown sludge, the residue of the drug (tetra-hydrocannabinoids) in the brain.

Quote:

How many people do you know who smoke weed? Do your parents smoke weed? Do your uncles, aunts etc?

The question isn't for OUR family...it's for YOUR family. I mean, 50% have tried it...there's a good chance.

Quote:

As I've said I know many close associates who drink and smoke cigarettes, none of them have ever smoked weed.

They just haven't told you patchy. It's not something people go around yelling after all. ESPECIALLY to people who are VEHEMENTLY against the drug....<wink wink>

Quote:

There is nothing hip about having reduced lung fitness and huffing and puffing after walking one kilometer;

Quote:

Maybe in your neighborhood; not in mine. "Wholesome" and being stoned on weed do not equate.

Quote:

South Korea doesn't need a marijuana problem as well - even though all the 'hip' people (according to Satori) might be using it.

Quote:

It is true. Countries like Sweden (and the Netherlands) have admitted their liberal attitudes to drugs experimentation have failed,

Quote:

I wouldn't say that; not when marijuana has been shown to reduce lung fitness more than nicotine-smoking.

strange that you would say THAT then....

Quote:

Tell that to all the longterm smokers coughing their guts out

Tell me what you ACTUALLY know about the drug?

yeesh...i can't believe i just typed all that out..

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 4 of 5

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe