Play Free War Battle Games Online, Multiplayer Games, Strategy Games, Top MMORPG

mrducky · **Posted:** Thu May 13, 2010 5:07 am

rederoin wrote:

mrducky wrote:

rederoin wrote:

Well time for my and my awesome debating skills(note = sarcasm) to join in.

First off.
I see alot being debated her , on whether its bad or not.
Why does that matter? alcohol kills way more people than weed does.
Only 1 person(I think) ever died from a weed overdose.
79000 die from alcohol poisoning a year.

weed doesnt kill by overdose, weed kills through impairment of decisions. i know it takes a couple hundred kilos of weed to be smoked to get OD, im talking diseases like emphysema setting in.

oh and alcohol is number one used drug~~ its like trying to say USA is stupid because China has so much more A+ students, china has 4 times more people.
That last part doesen't make alot of sense?
Anyway , what i ment whas , alcohol which is way more harmfull is legal , logicaly thinking , something less harmful should be legal?
logically thinking, something even less harmful (gay marriage) should be legal.
logically thinking, something even less harmful (bestiality) should be legal.
logically thinking, something even less harmful, (stealing (no weapon involved)) should be legal.

Weed is less dangerous than alcohol.
"weed is bad" even if it is(all drugs are).
It should be somebody's own choice to decide what the put in their body(or parent's) not the governments. (they could put a age restriction on it , like alcohol/tobacco.)

wow, hypocrisy by the sentence after? you are almost as good as anarchy. they shouldnt restrict! but they should.

So imo , we should keep this whole "weed is bad or not" thing out of the discussion.

or... weed is bad, therefore the legalisation is bad. you cant undercut my argument by discluding it from the discussion.

im saying that it is inherently bad to society as one cannot tax it for society. hence it has negatives, but pretty much no positives (there are sooo many recreational drugs out there...)
You can tax it , of-course people can avoid it , but avoiding taxes is against the law.
Somebody taking drugs , whitout harming others(while driving or something) schould be legal.
Harming others should still be against the law , even when under the influence of drugs , if somebody does not affect anybody in a harmfull way , why can he not take it?
because it drains on society, somebody has to pay the medical bills which was my whole argument, that society suffers at the selfish recreational addictions of the individual. its not avoiding the taxes themselves, rather, growing and selling weed cheaper then the taxxed weed to
1. produce cheaper weed
2. make a tidy profit
3. potentially kill people from unsafe weed (impurities/added stuff for the extra kick)
in short, the general argument there is that it drains from society overall while cancer sticks and alchy are taxxed by governments everywhere and ultimately contribute to society to a degree that balance out the costs and detrimental effects.

Secondly.
This applies more to the U.S.A than Europa(here in the Netherlands we don't have a "war on drugs" + a few other country's)
But I know that they do in the U.S.A
This "war on drugs" costs money. Tax payer money.

yes, but it isnt just against weed, its against the abuse of all drugs.
True , but atleast they would have to spend less money on the "weed"part.
And besides , is the war on drugs actually doing any good?
lets legalise LSD so they spend less money on the "LSD" part. fail logic. i cant really say about the second bit, i have no first hand experience with USA's war on drugs thing. im sure the education bit is useful.

On-top of that , it creates so called "harmless" criminals.
Criminals get arrested because they pose a threat to society.

unregulated weed, potentially full of horse tranquilizers so they can say their weed is better and stronger then the others... how is that not dangerous to the adventurous teenager who doesnt know much better?

all so they can make more money.

Potheads/people who sell weed(those who grow it themselves)Don't pose a threat to society , yet the government threats them as criminals.

see above point. unregulated, weed that is diluted with various chemicals to save the bottom line. that is a threat.

coughREADWHAT'LAW'IScough
Acoording to the law people who grow weed or sell them are criminals , not everywhere(some states/the Netherlands)
But the point is , it creates criminals who are harmless.

And of-course : The police force , instead of going after real criminals , they go after those potheads/sellers.
This is a waste of police force.

they go after drug dealers, people who negatively steal from the society to further line there pockets with the addicted's money. many states are lax about possession of weed, a small fine, confiscation and a warning are the usual. but dealers are contributing to the problem.
So do the tobacco company's and the alcohol company's.

Yet that is legal.
It doesn't make any bloody sense.

i address tobacco and alcohol further up in "overall" negativity to society. my point there was that they, to a degree, help fund hospitals. in aust 70% of the cigarette price goes into hospitals.

Making it legal = more tax money = more money for the economy/schools/infrastructure.

i pointed out earlier that it CANNOT be taxxed properly because of how easy it is to grow.

anarchy69 wrote:

Quote:

no comment, otherwise ill start calling you words that are synonyms of stupid. can someone else point out that anarchy REALLY should look up words he doesnt understand?

Can't make any more arguments you're leading to insults?
im being serious, read what i wrote, you are going all over this marijuana = liver death thing. last strike before i ignore your posts to avoid brain haemorrhaging

Quote:

"Government media" survey? Don't think I need to add any more words to this.

Quote:

It is run by the government but the website is maintained by the media department because interestingly enough, the internet is a form of media. strike one is continuing to point out that weed doesnt damage the liver when i never said it does. strike two is this blatantly moronic point. im not saying you are stupid, but this point is just sad, surely you can do better.

Again, leading to insults. When did I deny that it doesn't damage your liver in my point, your entire statement is hypocritical.
YOU DIDNT DENY. I NEVER SAID IT DID DAMAGE THE LIVER, I COMPARED WEED->EMPHYSEMA TO ALCOHOL->LIVER DAMAGE AND 4 WHOLE PARAGRAPHS HAVE BEEN DEDICATED TO THIS STRAWMAN.
CAN YOU READ CAPSLOCK?
smoothly ignoring my rebuttal that the australian government streamlines sectors and has the media section cover and maintain media (internet).

Quote:

wikianswers is where people troll. its like yahoo answers... only slightly better, but not enough. its a good post though, not an article, since articles are sources/contain sources. just going to point out that he stated the active chemical, THC is non addictive, the effects he noted are addictive, this lends weight to my "gateway drug" argument and it still remains that marijuana is addictive, especially in your case since you had to resort to something harder purely because of the high.

Wiki is one of the most reliable sources there are on the internet it's compared to as accurate as a thesaurus despite the public edit buttons there aren't many errors from the truth. I said weed isn't addictive and you changed 'again' and said the high was addictive which I never denied.
wikipedia = as accurate as a professional encyclopedia. wiki answers on the other hand is heavily un moderated and prone to trolls. weed -> high -> addictive, ergo, the weed is addictive for the high.

Quote:

at which point you forget to break and you drive through a school, an elderly retirement home and a hospital killing hundreds. mind wandering ESPECIALLY in an altered state. and NOT paying focussed attention is what gets people killed. same reason you should use a phone and drive.

Are you not reading what I'm typing? At a school zone or elderly retirement home is where stoned drivers excel at, they drive slow already because the paranoia of going too fast.
are you capable of noticing blatant sarcasm? aka. a joke

Quote:

FFS, 1. its a university study. 2. all internet sites are in part run by the media department. 3. you should lay off the ad hominems and strawmen and the weed and present a rebuttal. you are on 2 strikes before i discount your posts completely, beware.

-about to lose patience with anarchy stubborn ignorance, ducky out

Waiting for you to prove a point rather than result to insults and changing my words around.
this was a point, you did *ignorantly* point out that "OH ITS RUN BY GOVERNMENT MEDIA! IM NOT GOING TO PAY ATTENTION TO IT!"
i point out that

Quote:

1. its a university study. 2. all internet sites are in part run by the media department. 3. you should lay off the ad hominems and strawmen and the weed and present a rebuttal.

a smart person would drop some of "their" points up there and let things slide.

rederoin · **Posted:** Thu May 13, 2010 7:58 am

rederoin wrote:

mrducky wrote:

rederoin wrote:

Well time for my and my awesome debating skills(note = sarcasm) to join in.

First off.
I see alot being debated her , on whether its bad or not.
Why does that matter? alcohol kills way more people than weed does.
Only 1 person(I think) ever died from a weed overdose.
79000 die from alcohol poisoning a year.

weed doesnt kill by overdose, weed kills through impairment of decisions. i know it takes a couple hundred kilos of weed to be smoked to get OD, im talking diseases like emphysema setting in.

oh and alcohol is number one used drug~~ its like trying to say USA is stupid because China has so much more A+ students, china has 4 times more people.
That last part doesen't make alot of sense?
Anyway , what i ment whas , alcohol which is way more harmfull is legal , logicaly thinking , something less harmful should be legal?
logically thinking, something even less harmful (gay marriage) should be legal.
logically thinking, something even less harmful (bestiality) should be legal.
logically thinking, something even less harmful, (stealing (no weapon involved)) should be legal.
Gay marriage isen't harmfull
Bestiality is harm-full to a animal(and its rape).
Stealing is harmfull to the shop owner/producer

The last 2 , are harmfull to others weed is harmfull to 1 person , we should be allowed to do whatever we want with our body's.
It belongs to us , not the government.

Weed is less dangerous than alcohol.
"weed is bad" even if it is(all drugs are).
It should be somebody's own choice to decide what the put in their body(or parent's) not the governments. (they could put a age restriction on it , like alcohol/tobacco.)

wow, hypocrisy by the sentence after? you are almost as good as anarchy. they shouldnt restrict! but they should.
Not really , its the same reason anybody under 16 can't drink alcohol , Their to young to see the consequence's.

So imo , we should keep this whole "weed is bad or not" thing out of the discussion.

or... weed is bad, therefore the legalisation is bad. you cant undercut my argument by discluding it from the discussion.
Refer to my previous statement as why it doesn't matter of its bad or not.

im saying that it is inherently bad to society as one cannot tax it for society. hence it has negatives, but pretty much no positives (there are sooo many recreational drugs out there...)
You can tax it , of-course people can avoid it , but avoiding taxes is against the law.
Somebody taking drugs , whitout harming others(while driving or something) schould be legal.
Harming others should still be against the law , even when under the influence of drugs , if somebody does not affect anybody in a harmfull way , why can he not take it?
because it drains on society, somebody has to pay the medical bills which was my whole argument, that society suffers at the selfish recreational addictions of the individual. its not avoiding the taxes themselves, rather, growing and selling weed cheaper then the taxxed weed to
1. produce cheaper weed
2. make a tidy profit
3. potentially kill people from unsafe weed (impurities/added stuff for the extra kick)
in short, the general argument there is that it drains from society overall while cancer sticks and alchy are taxxed by governments everywhere and ultimately contribute to society to a degree that balance out the costs and detrimental effects.
Then why is alcohol still legal?
And tobacco?

Secondly.
This applies more to the U.S.A than Europa(here in the Netherlands we don't have a "war on drugs" + a few other country's)
But I know that they do in the U.S.A
This "war on drugs" costs money. Tax payer money.

yes, but it isnt just against weed, its against the abuse of all drugs.
True , but atleast they would have to spend less money on the "weed"part.
And besides , is the war on drugs actually doing any good?
lets legalise LSD so they spend less money on the "LSD" part. fail logic. i cant really say about the second bit, i have no first hand experience with USA's war on drugs thing. im sure the education bit is useful.
As far as I know(watching Penn & Teller(link on Page 1/2) the amount of drug users only went up , those making the war on drugs a waste of money.
But this doesn't have anything to do with the subject.(the war on drugs)

Potheads/people who sell weed(those who grow it themselves)Don't pose a threat to society , yet the government threats them as criminals.

see above point. unregulated, weed that is diluted with various chemicals to save the bottom line. that is a threat.

coughREADWHAT'LAW'IScough
Acoording to the law people who grow weed or sell them are criminals , not everywhere(some states/the Netherlands)
But the point is , it creates criminals who are harmless.

And of-course : The police force , instead of going after real criminals , they go after those potheads/sellers.
This is a waste of police force.

they go after drug dealers, people who negatively steal from the society to further line there pockets with the addicted's money. many states are lax about possession of weed, a small fine, confiscation and a warning are the usual. but dealers are contributing to the problem.
So do the tobacco company's and the alcohol company's.

Yet that is legal.
It doesn't make any bloody sense.

i address tobacco and alcohol further up in "overall" negativity to society. my point there was that they, to a degree, help fund hospitals. in aust 70% of the cigarette price goes into hospitals.
Then do the same for weed(putting a lot of tax on it).
If you're caught avoiding it(unless your grow it for yourself , and don't sell it(no profits) you should be fined/jailed

Making it legal = more tax money = more money for the economy/schools/infrastructure.

i pointed out earlier that it CANNOT be taxxed properly because of how easy it is to grow.
Its works fine here , poeple who want to sell weed more easly/better(more profits) will do that by setting up a coffee shop , which is more easy for the government to "inspect"

Selling weed on the streets could still be illagel , while making it legal in coffee shops , which can be inspected(for "bad" weed etc..)

bammurdo · **Posted:** Thu May 13, 2010 2:14 pm

Regarding my previous post.

Ok ... my apology for not clearly showing the link with 'chavs' and weed.
Allow me to elaborate.

Go for a walk ...
No wait ... until around 9:00pm when the sun is down... then go for a walk.

All peaceful isn't it?
Then ... you come across a group. 16-19 year olds ... laughing and chuckling.
These are the said "Chavs".

They will most likely have cheap clothing, 'Bling' and be holding 2 of 3 things :
1. Alcoholic beverage
2. Weed/Other drug
3. A weapon

Now ... continue walking towards them ...
After passing them ... after probably being told to "Shut up you *** ... " you'll notice a new smell...
It's not pleasant.
In fact ... it's revolting ... you curse yourself for breathing it in.

Now ... There's the link

Oh ... and weed is linked to chavs in my opinion because :

Go for a walk ... taking note of the people you cross.
You'll come across a few groups of chavs ... smoking weed like its cake.
possibly a few members of the public on there way calmly home ...

NEVER ... NO MATTER HOW MANY WALKS YOU DO IN YOUR LIFE will you come across a A-A* student ... casually smoking weed.
Period.

EVER.

Any form of respectable member of the public would never be sat outside, smoking the drug. (Well ... all except for the nubs who couldn't hold off peer pressure and is now unfortunately trapped by addiction. )

Even if you did ... question them why they're on it ... the result peer pressure from a bad group of people (eventual chavs)

Oh and the link between Chavs + tax payers money?

Chavs will most likely not work ... and live of either Benefits or theft.

Also ... I'm sorry, but I refuse to drag myself through that page worth are rubbish about why weed should be legal ... shorten it down would you -_-
just simply :
-It would stop ...

bammurdo

simmen · **Posted:** Thu May 13, 2010 2:49 pm

bammurdo wrote:

Regarding my previous post.

Ok ... my apology for not clearly showing the link with 'chavs' and weed.
Allow me to elaborate.

Go for a walk ...
No wait ... until around 9:00pm when the sun is down... then go for a walk.

All peaceful isn't it?
Then ... you come across a group. 16-19 year olds ... laughing and chuckling.
These are the said "Chavs".

They will most likely have cheap clothing, 'Bling' and be holding 2 of 3 things :
1. Alcoholic beverage
2. Weed/Other drug
3. A weapon

Now ... continue walking towards them ...
After passing them ... after probably being told to "Shut up you *** ... " you'll notice a new smell...
It's not pleasant.
In fact ... it's revolting ... you curse yourself for breathing it in.

Now ... There's the link

Oh ... and weed is linked to chavs in my opinion because :

Go for a walk ... taking note of the people you cross.
You'll come across a few groups of chavs ... smoking weed like its cake.
possibly a few members of the public on there way calmly home ...

NEVER ... NO MATTER HOW MANY WALKS YOU DO IN YOUR LIFE will you come across a A-A* student ... casually smoking weed.
Period.

EVER.

did you mean never come across?

Any form of respectable member of the public would never be sat outside, smoking the drug. (Well ... all except for the nubs who couldn't hold off peer pressure and is now unfortunately trapped by addiction. )

you don't get addicted by weed physicly, so your just throwing things out there.

Even if you did ... question them why they're on it ... the result peer pressure from a bad group of people (eventual chavs)

so you mean people are bad just for smoking weed?
are you SERIOUSLY that norrow minded?

Oh and the link between Chavs + tax payers money?

Chavs will most likely not work ... and live of either Benefits or theft.

i don't see how that got anything to do with weed, and i doubt the weed is the reason why those people are "chavs"

Also ... I'm sorry, but I refuse to drag myself through that page worth are rubbish about why weed should be legal ... shorten it down would you -_-
just simply :
-It would stop ...

bammurdo

It would stop wasting tax payers money running after people who smoke weed.
it would make it possible to use cannabis for clothes, fabric, ropes, paper and more
it would stop people buying weed from suporting crime
it would stop people becomign cxhavs because smoking weed woulden't nessisarely mean yo uare a criminal
it would stop chavs from feeling cool because they are smoking a illegal drug

it would stop you from being so narrow minded after seeing how much it really help

IQ · **Posted:** Thu May 13, 2010 3:17 pm

bammurdo wrote:

Regarding my previous post.

Ok ... my apology for not clearly showing the link with 'chavs' and weed.
Allow me to elaborate.

Go for a walk ...
No wait ... until around 9:00pm when the sun is down... then go for a walk.

All peaceful isn't it?
Then ... you come across a group. 16-19 year olds ... laughing and chuckling.
These are the said "Chavs".

They will most likely have cheap clothing, 'Bling' and be holding 2 of 3 things :
1. Alcoholic beverage
2. Weed/Other drug
3. A weapon

I second this.....Weed leads to violence!

Now ... continue walking towards them ...
After passing them ... after probably being told to "Shut up you *** ... " you'll notice a new smell...
It's not pleasant.
In fact ... it's revolting ... you curse yourself for breathing it in.

Stinks like hell. You have to see the disgust it causes to others. Swearing etc. is linked with drugs. How? Simply by the fact people of education and knowledge know what is right and wrong.

Now ... There's the link

Oh ... and weed is linked to chavs in my opinion because :

Go for a walk ... taking note of the people you cross.
You'll come across a few groups of chavs ... smoking weed like its cake.
possibly a few members of the public on there way calmly home ...

NEVER ... NO MATTER HOW MANY WALKS YOU DO IN YOUR LIFE will you come across a A-A* student ... casually smoking weed.
Period.

EVER.

Well.....
Any form of respectable member of the public would never be sat outside, smoking the drug. (Well ... all except for the nubs who couldn't hold off peer pressure and is now unfortunately trapped by addiction. )

Even if you did ... question them why they're on it ... the result peer pressure from a bad group of people (eventual chavs)

Oh and the link between Chavs + tax payers money?

Chavs will most likely not work ... and live of either Benefits or theft.

Also ... I'm sorry, but I refuse to drag myself through that page worth are rubbish about why weed should be legal ... shorten it down would you -_-
just simply :
-It would stop ...

bammurdo

Spoken like God. He is right.

rederoin · **Posted:** Thu May 13, 2010 3:18 pm

bammurdo wrote:

Regarding my previous post.

Ok ... my apology for not clearly showing the link with 'chavs' and weed.
Allow me to elaborate.

Go for a walk ...
No wait ... until around 9:00pm when the sun is down... then go for a walk.

All peaceful isn't it?
Then ... you come across a group. 16-19 year olds ... laughing and chuckling.
These are the said "Chavs".

They will most likely have cheap clothing, 'Bling' and be holding 2 of 3 things :
1. Alcoholic beverage
2. Weed/Other drug
3. A weapon

Now ... continue walking towards them ...
After passing them ... after probably being told to "Shut up you *** ... " you'll notice a new smell...
It's not pleasant.
In fact ... it's revolting ... you curse yourself for breathing it in.

Now ... There's the link

Oh ... and weed is linked to chavs in my opinion because :

Go for a walk ... taking note of the people you cross.
You'll come across a few groups of chavs ... smoking weed like its cake.
possibly a few members of the public on there way calmly home ...

NEVER ... NO MATTER HOW MANY WALKS YOU DO IN YOUR LIFE will you come across a A-A* student ... casually smoking weed.
Period.

EVER.

Any form of respectable member of the public would never be sat outside, smoking the drug. (Well ... all except for the nubs who couldn't hold off peer pressure and is now unfortunately trapped by addiction. )

Even if you did ... question them why they're on it ... the result peer pressure from a bad group of people (eventual chavs)

Oh and the link between Chavs + tax payers money?

Chavs will most likely not work ... and live of either Benefits or theft.

Also ... I'm sorry, but I refuse to drag myself through that page worth are rubbish about why weed should be legal ... shorten it down would you -_-
just simply :
-It would stop ...

bammurdo

If you're to lazy read , watch this : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 247394113#

Chavs are a problem is England.

But besides that , chavs should not be a reason to keep it illegal.
The smell of nicotine is far worse.

This is still the "debate" section.
If you want to take the "anti-weed" side.
Then come up with some arguments , as to why you think it should be illegal.

simmen · **Posted:** Thu May 13, 2010 3:19 pm

IQ did u read ANY of my comments to it?
all he say fails, and weed don't lead to violence at all, for a guy wiyth alot of facts you know little of this subject

rederoin · **Posted:** Thu May 13, 2010 3:22 pm

/sigh

Its a shame that the only one besides banmurdo , who opposes weed is IQ.
Who's worse at debating than me(and that's bad)

I would prefer it if you(IQ) backed up you're "opinions" with arguments.

btw , I know a "A"(in history) student who smokes weed , so yes , that's possible.

anarchy69 · **Posted:** Thu May 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Quote:

im being serious, read what i wrote, you are going all over this marijuana = liver death thing. last strike before i ignore your posts to avoid brain haemorrhaging

Yes, switch the argument around again.

Quote:

YOU DIDNT DENY. I NEVER SAID IT DID DAMAGE THE LIVER, I COMPARED WEED->EMPHYSEMA TO ALCOHOL->LIVER DAMAGE AND 4 WHOLE PARAGRAPHS HAVE BEEN DEDICATED TO THIS STRAWMAN.
CAN YOU READ CAPSLOCK?
smoothly ignoring my rebuttal that the australian government streamlines sectors and has the media section cover and maintain media (internet).

And then. . .

Quote:

im talking emphysema from the smoke. breathing in any large amount of particles at a constant rate leads to emphysema and various lung cancers. liver cancer is gradual, emphysema can set in rapidly in smokers.

You say it doesn't damage your liver yet in earlier posts you say it can cause cancer? Ohhh typical troll mistake.

Quote:

wikipedia = as accurate as a professional encyclopedia. wiki answers on the other hand is heavily un moderated and prone to trolls. weed -> high -> addictive, ergo, the weed is addictive for the high.

WikiAnswers is still moderated not to the extent it is to Wikipedia but still it's reliable. As for it being addictive, false, again. In the wrong state of mind I'm sure one probably thinks they rely on the high but that's never the case.. Go ask anyone that smokes if they can't live without weed.

Quote:

Waiting for you to prove a point rather than result to insults and changing my words around.

Quote:

this was a point, you did *ignorantly* point out that "OH ITS RUN BY GOVERNMENT MEDIA! IM NOT GOING TO PAY ATTENTION TO IT!"
i point out that

Still waiting for you to prove a point rather than throw insults out there. There's been 3 people now that have replied to your posts in a negative way don't you understand by now?
Sit boo boo sit

mrducky · **Posted:** Fri May 14, 2010 2:06 am

first off, IQ, i dibs this colour ages ago, i might not be a mod, but it would be nicer if you didnt use it to prevent confusion.

anarchy69 wrote:

Quote:

im being serious, read what i wrote, you are going all over this marijuana = liver death thing. last strike before i ignore your posts to avoid brain haemorrhaging

Yes, switch the argument around again.
switch it from what? CAN SOMEONE ELSE HERE BACK ME UP? i never said it caused liver cancer, i said its deleterious effects were similiar to liver cancer from alcohol.

Quote:

YOU DIDNT DENY. I NEVER SAID IT DID DAMAGE THE LIVER, I COMPARED WEED->EMPHYSEMA TO ALCOHOL->LIVER DAMAGE AND 4 WHOLE PARAGRAPHS HAVE BEEN DEDICATED TO THIS STRAWMAN.
CAN YOU READ CAPSLOCK?
smoothly ignoring my rebuttal that the australian government streamlines sectors and has the media section cover and maintain media (internet).

And then. . .
im pointing out now that 2 words is not a rebuttal.

Quote:

im talking emphysema from the smoke. breathing in any large amount of particles at a constant rate leads to emphysema and various lung cancers. liver cancer is gradual, emphysema can set in rapidly in smokers.

You say it doesn't damage your liver yet in earlier posts you say it can cause cancer? Ohhh typical troll mistake.
i said it causes lung cancer/lung damage. aka emphysema, its a strawman to continue this when you obviously cannot understand english. half a strike here, 2.5 strikes out of 3. ive pointed this out that i was comparing it to liver multiple times and on every occasion you have brought it up, by continuing to flount this out of context which was a reply to your reply to my point that was

Quote:

im establishing it has a negative side effect, that occurs faster and is more apparent then liver cancer from drinking.

i was referring to emphysema for weed and liver cancer for alcohol as a comparison.
drop the point, bring up how moronically stubborn your urgency in this point is again and ill ignore all your write.

IS IT CLEAR YET? AM I CLEAR YET? MUST I REPEAT FOR THE FOURTH FREAKING TIME IN CAPSLOCK? does anyone else have trouble following?

Quote:

wikipedia = as accurate as a professional encyclopedia. wiki answers on the other hand is heavily un moderated and prone to trolls. weed -> high -> addictive, ergo, the weed is addictive for the high.

WikiAnswers is still moderated not to the extent it is to Wikipedia but still it's reliable. As for it being addictive, false, again. In the wrong state of mind I'm sure one probably thinks they rely on the high but that's never the case.. Go ask anyone that smokes if they can't live without weed.
i dont hang out with druggies.
as for it not being addictive, as opposed to one biased answer coming from wiki answers, i decided to go look for the people that actually directly deal with addiction. addiction clinics.
http://www.drug-rehab.com/marijuana-addiction.htm
http://www.marijuana-addiction.net/about-us.htm
http://www.addict-help.com/marijuana.asp
"In 1995, 165,000 people going into drug treatment programs used marijuana as their primary drug."

in other words, suck on that. 165 000 people disagree, i might not have asked them, but im pretty sure you go to rehab because of addiction.

Quote:

Waiting for you to prove a point rather than result to insults and changing my words around.

Quote:

this was a point, you did *ignorantly* point out that "OH ITS RUN BY GOVERNMENT MEDIA! IM NOT GOING TO PAY ATTENTION TO IT!"
i point out that

Still waiting for you to prove a point rather than throw insults out there. There's been 3 people now that have replied to your posts in a negative way don't you understand by now?
Sit boo boo sit
maybe you missed the point the first time round when you completely dismissed my link merely because it was maintained and the site was run by the media sector of the australian government. aka. the section that deals with the media. aka. the internet.

Quote:

1. its a university study. 2. all internet sites are in part run by the media department. 3. you should lay off the ad hominems and strawmen and the weed and present a rebuttal.

should i have to bring the link back here, or are you capable of going back through the pages and looking at the study?

2.5/3 strikes. my patience wears thin.

Legalizing weed.