You are still clueless. Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it isn't there.

Do you think you are more likely to get weed that has mold/pesticides/other contaminants from your local drug dealer, or from a licensed business that is regulated heavily? Keeping in mind that the business is required to have all of their products tested for mold, pesticides, bugs, and any other contaminants.

Every fruit gets moldy. Should we ban fruit to protect people from dangerous mold?

Well fruit has real benefits, imo weed just makes people ******ed.
Weed has very little benefit really for most. Ive grown and sold pounds and my grandpa smoked it to help him with chemo, before you think I dont know ****. Most potheads are boring and pretty useless. Just like drunks and other drug addicts, its all bad if abused, and most abuse.

Weed makes people ******ed? Do you know how uneducated you sound?

I'm not even going to try arguing weed's benefits to you (this argument isn't about whether weed is beneficial - it's about whether it should be legal). You already admit, immediately after claiming weed has little benefit, that it's quite beneficial for many people.

Statistically speaking, you're absolutely wrong about abuse. The vast majority of people who use marijuana don't abuse it. About 9% of marijuana users end up addicted. In comparison, 15% of people who try alcohol struggle with a lifelong addiction. Although I do agree with your final point: abusing any drug is unhealthy and will lead to problems.

You guys realize all these "weed is bad, it's addictive, it doesn't do anything good for most people" arguments also apply to poker? Maybe the nanny state should step in and protect us from gambling too?

You stoners always try to make the same argument that “weed is good because it’s not as bad as alcohol” as if someone is comparing the two. That’s like saying robbery is good because at least it’s not murder. They’re both not good!

And I don’t know where you get your statistics about addiction from but I’m guessing you’re only considering physical addiction. Psychological addiction to marijuana is pretty darn high. Don’t believe me? Try not smoking for a week or two when you’re under stress. Let us know if you crave marijuana or not at that point.

CBD has some medicinal benefits but THC is just stupid and should be illegal.

I wasn't aware that something being stupid was grounds for denying legal access to the public.

I like the Three Stooges, should it be illegal for someone to grant me access ?

Same for viewing posts on NVG, Dr.

I compare it to alcohol because alcohol is a recreational drug that is currently legal. They are extremely different substances obviously, but if you think THC should be illegal then obviously you think we should bring back prohibition of alcohol.

No, I'm not considering physical addiction at all. Marijuana is not physically addictive. The only way to be addicted to marijuana is psychologically (unlike alcohol or opiates, where withdrawal can be severe enough to cause death). Here is where I got my statistics from:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...1111/add.12703

"The life-time risk of developing dependence among those who have ever used cannabis was estimated at 9% in the United States in the early 1990s as against 32% for nicotine, 23% for heroin, 17% for cocaine, 15% for alcohol and 11% for stimulants."


Why should THC be illegal? Because you think it's bad? You obviously support outlawing alcohol and tobacco as well, that should go without saying. But do you think we should outlaw kratom? Salvia? Nitrous? Caffiene? Chocolate?

Chocolate contains Anandamide, which is psychoactive and activates cannabanoid receptors in the brain similar to THC. It's also been proven to potentiate the effects of THC:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11363932

So, where do you draw the line? Do you want to ban any substance that has even a slight abuse potential? Because in my opinion, chocolate certainly qualifies. Especially when you consider that in the United States 40% of adults are obese. I'm sure you're aware that obesity causes a litany of health issues. So, when do we ban chocolate, or processed food?

Incoherent posts like this are the reason having a discussion with stoners is pointless.

Your summary of the abstract of the article is wrong. It isn’t saying chocolate has the same effect as THC. It’s saying it activates cannibinoid receptors. That doesn’t mean chocolate gets you high like THC does. And citing abstracts of misunderstood articles also demonstrates why having conversations about this with stoners who think they’re scientists because they get high, is pointless.

And yes, I would support a ban on alcohol. And yes, I know the arguments about how we tried it once and a black market developed and blah blah blah. I’m also not a fan of the nanny state. However, I am a fan of having the right to formulate my opinions and giving my support to causes that are in line with my personal beliefs and morals whether you like it or not.

You are mistaken, I don't use marijuana in any form.

Perhaps however, you think I'm just "stupid", should I be arrested for that ?

That you do not understand a pretty simple post may be your issue, better be careful lest you be deemed "stupid" and illegal.

Okay, it's apparent you have some issue; anyone who disagrees with you must be a "stoner".

As for your conflicting advocacy for a ban on alcohol, while disclaiming being a fan of a nanny state, that requires no real comment. You are simply incoherent, Dr. .... lay off the pipe, dude.

I mean you're not of the caliber of Jeff Spicoli for stupidity, but your posts provide interactive entertainment that I believe should be protected under the First Amendment.

You must be intentionally misreading my posts, because I never claimed the psychoactive compounds in chocolate have the same effect as THC. Try reading it again if you didn't get it the first time.

You absolutely have the right to formulate opinions and articulate them in the thread. And I have the right to point out all of the absurdities and inconsistencies within your posts.

I would love to hear your argument for banning alcohol. I'd also love to hear where you'd stop in terms of banning the consumption of various substances. I'm assuming tobacco is on the list considering it's negative social health consequences. Do you think caffeine is stupid too? It also has negative effects, especially on those who abuse it (it's quite an addictive drug, as anyone who's gone through caffeine withdrawals can tell you).

Would you also ban a plant like Kratom, which has psychoactive properties as well as medicinal uses? Would you ban Kava, or Damiana, or any other psychoactive plant that is currently legal? How about banning processed food, which has been proven to be more addictive than cocaine and has caused an obesity epidemic in this country? Would that make your list also?

In fact, why don't we just make a list of approved substances that adults can put in their body. There could be a committee, filled with noble and moral people like yourself, who would decide for all Americans what they can and can't put into their bodies. As someone who doesn't like nanny states, surely you could get behind an idea like that

I said meth is worse, not the same as lsd. Can u read?

Maybe lsd isnt the worst drug out there, never said it was. But please stop saying its safe to take and especially stop saying its safer than one beer!

.000000000000000000000001 of all weed that has been smoked has been tested for anything up until this year. Now it is only slightly more. And beyond that not every legal state tests for mold

LSD is safer than a beer. It's less physically damaging to the body and has lower potential for addiction. Not to mention its usefulness in psychotherapy, such as treating ptsd. Furthermore, this is purely anecdotal but worth mentioning, everyone I know who has tried LSD has regarded it as one of the most positive experiences in their life. The same cannot be said for alcohol

And why would that be? You realize you're making an excellent argument for legalization and regulation?

I dunno, I think there is a much higher risk of serious injury from one hit of lsd as opposed to drinking one beer. LSD makes you delusional. I'd be much more likely to walk out into the middle of traffic, because I'd forgotten what cars were and what they do, on one hit of LSD than after drinking one beer. Of course when it comes to entertainment value its not even close.

What LSD are you taking? Doesn't sound like LSD to me. I've never been delusional on it, or had the urge to walk into traffic. Walking into traffic drunk... well I see that every time I go out drinking.

My last LSD trip I spent walking the streets of san francisco with a group of friends, hitting up a few different bars and having a good time. None of us felt delusional or forgot what cars do lmfao

People who have never tried psychedelics always have the most absurd perceptions of them. You mentioned you've tried DMT, what about ayhuasca? I'm headed to San Diego in January to do a ceremony with a shaman.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Agreed. No, never tried ayhuasca. I've heard that's far more intense and quite a long trip iirc. Hope it's a good trip and a positive experience for you.

I've only tried mushrooms, LSD, DMT, as well as a couple RC's. Would definitely recommend DMT to those experienced with psychedelics. Only done it once, but it was indescribable, and it only lasts 20 minutes (which is kinda nice compared to the 12 hour trip of acid)

Although DMT is not something I'd recommend to someone who hasn't tried mushrooms or LSD. It's just way too strong, and it actually does make you feel like you're in a whole different universe, as opposed to just subtly changing your perceptions like the milder hallucinogens. Definitely a drug to respect and I wouldn't do it alone

Bye Bye Dickhead

I've done LSD a good dozen times or so, trust me, I know what an acid trip is like, and if you don't lose your mind then you got ripped off.

It's crazy tgiggity hasn't heard of people with a bad trip story.

That whole debate about weed being good or bad for you is pretty stupid.

Lots of studies suggest that a lack of activity is worse for your health than smoking. Should we require people to take at least 5k steps every day?

Besides that, having that much weed with intent to sell without a license is a crime anywhere that has legalized pot.

x is stupid AND should be illegal
is not the same as:
x should be illegal because it is stupid
even I get this simple logic and I smoke lots of weed