StarGateWars Forums

Mister Sandman wrote:[spoiler]

Kit-Fox wrote:I wasnt attacking your message I was simply trying to say that you may in a few years time see things a little less black&white. There are lots of shades of grey out there & its been my experience that the younger folks here havent always found those shades of grey or havent fully understood.

Who knows you might just find you do see things differently in 4/5 years time & might look back at what you've said here & think to yourself that it was a foolish outlook, or you might not. We cant know till we get to that point.

Let us say, i haven't had a childhood like you. I was bone a man, and thus, a man. Not a boy, not a teenager, a man.[/spoiler]

Kit-Fox wrote:
No one is born a man or full grown & experienced, we all start as blank slates as children and our experiences shape us and mould us into the adults and grown ups we will become. To say otherwise is not only arrogant but its also stupid & ignores several empirical psyhcological facts about how the human mind & psyche asserts itself and grows as we experience more.

And you havent lived more than someone who is 40 years old, its a common enough saying, you are trying I assume totell us that you have tried to experience as much as possible or do as much as you can in your 17 years of life, which would be considered much more than your peers. This is not unique however but it does not mean that you know more or understand more than someone who has lived till they are 40 and done nothing special. Your life is no more special that the other.

Drek wrote:Sandman your such a n00b

Drek wrote:Re my comment about Sandman being a n00b.

I was responding to your level of childishness, comments such as, "yah so?" and "your point is?". Both of these seem to be kinda yah boo sucks kind of terminology.

Kit-Fox wrote:Actually I have a couple of questions for you Sandman

1 ) what religion do you follow?

&

2 ) Do you consider someone who is gay as having made a choice or as having been born that way?

Drek wrote:@ Sandman.

I am not disagreeing with you about the harmful effects that cannabis CAN have on a persons life and wellbeing. I just disagreeing with your (in my opinion) lopsided view that smoking cannabis automatically flushes someones life down the crapper.

It ends there....and that is the point.

You said, "It is no question that Cannabis is a mind altering drug and therefore taking away reality placing the person in a fantasy land. It has been shown in many many studies that a long term use of cannabis permanently scars someone. Just an example, the scars on the wrist of a kid who finds it easier to deal with life by cutting himself because it takes away the other pains of the world. Cannabis has the same effect, no not physical scars, but it scars the overall intelligence, and long term growth of the person. It scars lungs, it is highly unhealthy, and thus, illegal."

Of course I agree with you that cannabis is a mind altering drug, that is irrefutable. But as with other mind altering drugs the fantasy land effect is temporary, after smoking a joint one day you are NOT high the day after. Only repeated and heavy use/abuse of cannabis is going to scar someone permantly.

And you might say the regular smoker of tobacco (and you can say that too alcohol) consumes justifiable amounts and never has heavy use or abuse of the substance... Well, some do, but many who are addicted, in which smoking pot is highly addictive, have higher chances to smoke more and become a heavy user.


You quoted me, Also he said, "The lesser evil would be not even smoking or doing mind altering drugs".

This statement has merit, but it is your own view or "opinion" it may not be applicable to everyone on this planet namely because each individual has a different set of personal ideas and ideals.

and added yet another opinion, "It isnt my own opinion, it is a plain downright fact".

You really do need to seperate fact from opinion in your mind, it will help you think straight.

No, it is a fact. Seriously use logic. No even touching the stuff is the lesser of the evils. It isnt hard to live without. It isnt a need. And therefore the lesser of the evils isnt really applicable.


You went on to say, "1. Ive seen friends stuff up their lives due to this drug. Some even died as a overall result, not because of cannabis but because cannabis dulled their brains into not thinking right."

Yes of course cannabis readjust's someone's proirities if they become addicted. But their actions are their own ie their choice. Cannabis does not tell people to go and steal, it may provide a motive. But there again money, provide's a motive for theft are you suggesting that we abolish money now?

Why not abolish money? Money is worthless anyway. The problem wouldn't be money, it would be the persons greed. And it is thier choice to smoke, but I am not sure it would be their choice to do certain actions if they are inebriated.

also, "2. My evidence for a chain pot smoker, well, think of this, if pot was as readily available as cigarettes.... what would you get, both give you lung cancer but one gives you an amazing high."

I think you need to reread the part of my post that this in reply to, I don't think you understood my point.

Then rewrite it.

then you went onto say, "The fact are, people are weak and irresponsible. Would you allow a patient if you were a fully trained doctor to self medicate? No because as a fully trained doctor, you would have the sense that, the patient has a 90% probability in not knowing what s/he has, what to take, and how much to take and how often."

Yes I agree with you, people should not self medicate. I have not meant to imply that they should. Medical professionals have a large amount of training and knowledge that the layman does not. My example of someone already suffering from a (for want of a better phrase) mental problem turning to cannabis was an argument against your point that the smoking of cannabis always causes a mental illness. ie there is a correlation but your interpretation could be wrong.

A correlation is a correlation neither the less, and it isnt 100% wrong and 100% right in every case but for the general it does suffice as an correct statement.

and then "Yes I am arrogant. Yes I am restrictive. People NEED boundaries. Boundaries give freedom."

I disagree, boundaries do not give freedom. Someone within a physical or metaphorical cage is in fact not free. Freedom to me is choice.

It is called freedom within boundaries. IF there were no boundaries, then it would be chaos. Take murder, if murder was legalised, oh boy there would be a lot more dead people. Law is a boundary. A boundary to keep the layman safe.

you continue, "Medicinal drugs, i hope, are fully tested and have all known side effects noted. And generally a large majority, do not experience such effects.

Yes you can OD on painkillers,and you can get addicted to them. However, for the general population can be counted on to know how much to take. Also, there the drugs are measured to suitable dosages. Now, how the hell can we do that with cannabis straight off the plant. You cant it is impossible to tell how much of a high you are going to get."

I agree you can not tell straight away how strong a particular sample of cannabis is going to be, until you smoke it. Then you know. Then you can regulate (purely empirically) by smoking less or more of that particular sample per session.

It doesn't work that way.

and then, "Overall, the conmen person, would have no clue what so ever in dealing with drugs."

I assume you mean that a dealer is unable to give accurate advice on the strength of his product? That I concede.

A drug dealer doesnt give a dollar for your well being they only care for your cash.

then you interleaved my paragraph with these comments,

"Happens alot of times.." any examples or stat's to back this up? Of course not, there isn't a national census of cannabis user's. I could equally opine, it doesn't happen in alot of cases. Just simply look at crime rates and drug useage rates, there are statstics.

"Like lawyers..." It is quite likely given the number of lawyers in the world, that yes some of them do smoke cannabis and that they still manage to have productive careers etc. I also meant other professional and trade's people such as horticultural workers, electricians, dentists.However, not as productive as they can be.

"Some times it is" How so? In my opinion cannabis could provide motive but when it comes down to it an individual still has the choice between right and wrong no matter what he choses to intoxicate himself with.
1. Sometimes they dont choose to intoxicate themselves.
2. Judgement is clouded .


"Unless you are completely high and have no control, like what weed does." Cannabis does not cause oneself to lose complete control, personality is a strong force. I say again as an individual a person still has a choice in any circumstance.
Not unless they are utterly trashed.

"It is more sad to see people who have such flexible moral fibres. Everyone should draw a line, not be fickle." My moral fibre isn't that flexible, I know the difference between right and wrong. Having said that flexibility is strength, if you lose it you have no way of adapting to new situations and events. But in general people are fickle yes, it is part of being human. have you never had a change of mind on something?

A change of mind is only done when wise. A change of stance of the issue of drugs is not okay. Since when is sinning right. Flexibility is not strength, adaptability is. There is a difference. One is that you can change without thought and drawing a logical conclusion, the other one is changing with a logical conclusion.

Drek wrote:Sandaman said, "And that is besides the point of the argument. Back the subject kids.

But I tell you what is amusing to me, is that you are trying to degrade me as a person due to my age, and getting off the point. Thus, you are showing how weak your arguement really is and thus, you admit defeat."

I am not trying to degrade you by refering to your age. Merely suggesting that at 17 your opinions shouldn't (and probably arn't) be set in stone. You are young and have not experienced everything.

Kit-Fox wrote:Well you know if you dont want to answer the questions you dont have too, but it really does show just how weak your position is.

Questions dont have to have anything to do with the topic Sandman, and unless your scared why would you refuse to answer them? They are harmless enough