Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 Why marijuana is the worst drug

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Dec 29, 2001
 Comments:
Marjuana. Mary Jane. Dope. Pot. Weed. Grass. Kind Bud. Probably the only thing that outnumbers marjuana smokers are the names that exist for it. We here at Adequacy.org never shy away from the hot button topics of the day, so I feel it is my duty to offer up a few under-mentioned truths about sparking up a spliff. I am taking Thai stick to task, so to speak. Exposing the Herb. Highlighting Hash in the harsh light of heuristic honesty. Scraping away the resin to reveal... well, you get the idea.
drugs

More stories about Drugs
The Adequacy.org Guide to Cheap Legal Highs: Garlic
The Adequacy.org Guide to Cheap Legal Highs: Capsaicin
Electronica: The threat to our youth
The Drug Underground Comes Online
Exploding the Myths of Teenage Drug Use

More stories by
zikzak

Misogyny: Why hurt when you can hate?
Understanding Ayn Rand through the music of Rush
The rise of pseudo-connoisseurship and beer
America is still the greatest
Adequacy sheds light at our darkest hour
Thomas Kinkade brings art back to the people
This week's top-selling music releases
Ken Kesey will go no furthur
Book Review: A pair of holiday novels
Caffeinated Mints: A Comparative Review
Anakin Loses a Hand
Debunking the Holocaust Hoax
You most likely already have the wrong ideas in your head about this article. Unfortunately this website has been tainted by the editorial dominance of Right Wingers, so any preconceptions you may hold are to be forgiven. Let me state up front that we will not be discussing the morality of the drug war, "gateway drugs", legalization, glaucoma or hemp. The title is Why marijuana is the worst drug. We will be evaluating it solely in comparison to other narcotics and mind altering substances.

Marijuana is an insideous beast. It has a tendency to insinuate its way completely into the everyday lives of its users. No, this doesn't happen to all users. Many many people only smoke once in awhile and never fall into the lifestyle of the habitual pot head, but the proclivity of marijuana to become a central part of its users existance is undeniable.

Some other drugs have this tendency as well, but the only ones that do so on the same level are opiates. Even though methamphetamine and cocaine are highly addictive they don't lend themselves to the same type of total, long-term personality saturation. Unlike the habitual marijuana user, you can't take equivalent amounts of speed or coke every day for more than a couple years without totally destroying your life. They are drugs that reinforce the concept of moderation, at least among users who value their lives.

Sure, we all know that guy who spends entire weeks tripping, or the chick who goes clubbing on ecstacy almost every night of the week. The difference is that these people are the exceptions, and they never keep at it for very long. Their activities are more a function of age and transitory lifestyle than of the drugs themselves.

Some would argue that alcohol fits the same lifestyle-saturation pattern as marijuana and opiates like heroin. Some may even suggest that cigarettes fall into this category. What sets them apart is a matter of degree. Having a drink to relax is fundamentally different than getting a little stoned to relax. Even a little stoned is still stoned, and you still have glazed eyes, a stupid grin, and an inability to carry on a decent conversation with non-stoned people. Yes, there are alcoholics, but they are definitely a small minority. As for cigarettes, the narcotic effect is so miniscule as to almost not be worth mentioning.

The tendency of other drugs to inforce moderation in their users can usually be rightfully seen as corollary to their potential danger to the user. In this light marijuana may seem superior in that it doesn't present such a health risk. However, it is that risk that keeps those other drugs in their proper place.

A drug is something that alters you and changes how you react to the world. If you engage in drug use on weekends or special occassions then you are essentially taking a break from life. You are on a drug-induced vacation. But if you take drugs damn-near every day then your use takes on a whole different meaning. You are not doing it to have fun anymore, you are taking medication.

Are you a habitual marijuana smoker? Do you need daily medication from life? How did you get to this point? You started smoking with your friends when you were out having a good time. It enhanced the fun. What changed?

The above points can be addressed with the same answer to the question of what makes marijuana worse than heroin and opium. Unlike those drugs, marijuana lies. Every junkie knows that they are a junkie. Every person who wastes away each evening in an opium den knows that they themselves are also wasting away. Every other drug out there reminds its users that, no matter how much enjoyment they receive, there is a price to be paid. Every one except marijuana.

Marijuana tells you that you are a better person for having smoked marijuana. Marijuana tells you that you are more creative when you smoke marijuana. Marijuana tells you that it helps you concentrate. What marijuana doesn't tell you is that you feel more creative because you have lost the ability to judge your work from the vantage point of someone who isn't stoned. It doesn't tell you that it replaced your critical thinking skills with the naive wonder of a six year old. It doesn't tell you that your present vague awareness of your surroundings is not the same thing as being relaxed and at peace. And most importantly, it doesn't tell you that when you become an habitual user its effects persist even when you are not longer stoned.

The similarities of former marijuana smokers' testimonials should tell you something. "After two weeks it was like a haze was removed from my life." "I felt like I had finally woken up." "I couldn't believe how much more alive I felt after a month away from it."

Any drug that takes two to four weeks of non-usage before you even realize what a mess you were is seriously evil. Drugs that deceive are not to be trusted. If a drug's entire purpose is not to have fun, but rather to make the user believe that the drug itself is harmless and has little real effect, then what point is there in taking that drug?


Pointless article (none / 0) (#3)
by paradigm on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 02:57:38 PM PST
As someone who used once said "After two weeks it was like a haze was removed from my life." I can tell you that this article won't reach the potheads, and if it does, it't won't impact them. For me, it was nearly flunking out of school that made me stop smoking.

I went from smoking at least once a day for a good number of months to going cold-turkey for seven months. I now smoke about once or twice a month with friends and my grades are unaffected.

I know what you were trying to say, I just don't think it needed to be said because the people who know don't need to hear it and the people who need to hear it, won't.

-paradigm


puff puff pass (none / 0) (#4)
by paradigm on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 03:04:21 PM PST
err, I meant to say that I was one of those people who has once said that.

wow I suck at logical thinking today,

paradigm


that's because you are a pot head (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by philipm on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 08:44:01 PM PST
So, let me get this straight. You are stoned. You read an article that said that being stoned sucks. Then you post to say "I knew that" "Stop preaching to the choir".

Maybe you should stop smoking? Tell some of your stoned friends to read this.


--philipm

 
Not necessarily (none / 0) (#37)
by Lint on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 09:34:38 PM PST
I was never a serious pot smoker... or user of any other drug for that matter, with the very real exception of cigarettes and a brief stint with ecstasy. But I have seen what habitual marijuana use has done to close friends, family members and the teenagers with whom I work.

You're right--it's nearly impossible to get this message through to someone who is in the teeth of a serious marijuana habit. Most people think that because pot isn't "physically" addictive that means it is safe and easy to stop using. However, behaviorally and psychologically it is one of the most ensnaring drugs I've ever encountered. I've seen close friends wake up first thing in the morning and light up. This would continue through the day, even at their jobs, and on into the night until the last thing I would hear was the sound of a one-hitter tapping against an ashtray.

It's easy to think that pot smoking isn't detrimental... it usually doesn't have the aggressive factor found in so many drugs and it has quite a few physiological benefits. But it is an extremely dumb drug. Impaired reflexes, motor skills and thought processes cannot, even in the short term, be good for you. And when used for self medicating (as the author mentioned and as I've seen oh-so-often in the kids with whom I work) marijuana usage can cover up serious emotional and behavioral disorders, such as ADHD, anorexia/bulimia, oppositional-defiant disorder, etc.

Another thing I've seen very often is the tendency for depression in the marijuana user. Certain drugs, such as opiates, ecstasy and pot, can stimulate or suppress the receptors in the brain that produce serotonin--the brain chemical that helps regulate mood and sleep. Too much serotonin creates euphoria or panic, as seen with E. Too little can produce serious depression, especially after long term use of the drug that is either suppressing the serotonin receptors or over stimulating them to the point where serotonin production falls off dramatically. And those with preexisting depressive disorders who take medication such as Serzone can have sometimes serious mood affection disorders if marijuana is used while taking this medication.

So enough medical babble from me... I agree that the logic to not use pot due to the scary side of the drug is lost on many who are currently smoking, some even as we speak whilst they giggle at our pretty sentences. But it's not bad information for those who might know someone with a marijuana "problem". Namely, the guy next door who built furniture out of Domino's Pizza boxes. `Strue.


Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

 
Aren't we forgetting some people? (none / 0) (#5)
by Kat on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 03:19:17 PM PST
Some people take marijuana to block out their problems, just as people do with alcohol, and harder drugs. At least they're being sensible about it, and not using crack or drinking a bottle of Vodka.


Sorry, but No. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by zikzak on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 03:29:05 PM PST
Blocking out problems is why most habitual marijuana users smoke. But that is not the reason most people drink alcohol and take other drugs.

It doesn't surprise me that an addle-brained stoner would totally miss the point of the article, though.


Existence of logic? (none / 0) (#114)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 12:58:26 PM PST
>>It doesn't surprise me that an addle-brained stoner would totally miss the point of the article, though.

Is accusing every contradicting poster of being a drug addict or mentally inferior, your best way to defend your point. I respect your opinion and believe you have the mental competency to reply logically. Please do so.



 
You forgot to mention the corrosion of will (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by Adam Rightmann on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 04:27:45 PM PST
In my limited, second-hand experience, the biggest danger I see with marijuana is the corrosion of will. Too often in my high school and college years did I see friends and acquaintances start a dalliance with the demon weed, starting with the occasional puff of a hand rolled bong at a party, to daily toking fests. Their grades and activities all dwindled into scoring enough smack to keep them high the next day. I would, on occasion, attempt to reach them by listening to their stoned ramblings about the movie they would make, the incredible inventions, the wonderful story, and yet the next morning they would sleep in and skip their morning classes, then play ultimate frisbee and skip their afternoon classes, eventually dropping out of school to get lives delivering furniture, or some other job where will power is not needed, just the ability to lift heavy things. What a waste, intelligent young men and women who were on their ways to becoming engineers, scientists and theologians, turning into furniture movers, burger flippers and custodians, all because they couldn't defer the pleasure of getting high to go to class.

I think it's no coincidence that marijuana use increased in the 1960's as youthful unrest also increased. Someone in a higher position realized that the quickest way to pacify and paralyze the agitating youth of America was with the kynd. I think prayer and Biblical studies would have accomplished much the same, at far less of a cost in human lives, but no one asked me.


A. Rightmann

Biblical Studies? (none / 0) (#9)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 04:51:33 PM PST
How do you think that Biblical Studies would stop people from being agitating? Really, it might have been good. The more you think about the Bible, the less it makes sense..and prayers..well.

Now..I find what keeps most kids busy are computer games, the TV, and video games..which, weren't around in the 1960's, but..then again, most people think those are poison for the mind, which is oh so untrue.

And if you really want to get grades up and keep kids busy, make schooldays longer and more in the week, but kids wouldn't like that.

-D


Get thee behind me Satan (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by fractured clavicle on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 06:16:44 PM PST
The more you think about the Bible, the less it makes sense..
We have no need for deceivers of men here. Run along and with your God-hating to somewhere it won't be so easily exposed.


I'm not suprised. (none / 0) (#45)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 11:30:47 PM PST
So, you basically don't want me to talk? Feh, just like someone to simply ignore them when they don't want to face the truth. And really, did I ever say I hated anything? I think not. Why put words in my mouth? And as for deceivers of men..well..I suppose that makes deception the revealation of the truth?

-D


"The TRUTH". (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by tkatchev on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 03:32:06 AM PST
Wow, that's an awfully tasty word, isn't it?

Take care, and don't get an ego overdose.


--
Peace and much love...




Pot. Kettle. Black. (1.00 / 1) (#50)
by SpaceGhoti on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 03:56:37 AM PST
(nt)


A troll's true colors.

Haha, you lose. (3.66 / 3) (#52)
by tkatchev on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 04:33:11 AM PST
When have I ever claimed that I hold the patent to the absolute "objective truth"?

As always, liberalist have a termendous problem differentiating between a personal, subjective "truth", and a factual, objective "truth".

There is a difference.


--
Peace and much love...




don't forget, tkatchev (1.00 / 1) (#53)
by osm on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 06:20:56 AM PST
you are talking to a person who believes he can do whatever pleases him as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. of course, he gets to define what hurts someone else, since he doesn't have that annoying restriction of having Christian values to tell him what is right and wrong.


Christian Values (none / 0) (#179)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 03:22:37 PM PST
You don't need "christian values" to know the difference between right and wrong. There is something called morals that has nothing to do with christianity. To all those who think that they are high and mighty because they are christians and who only do good things to get into the gates of heaven-WAKE UP! Heaven and hell are nonexistant and are only there for those people who don't really care about the welfare of others, they only care about going to heaven. I do good deeds every moment of my life, not because I am striving to go to heaven or not to go to hell (since they don't exist), but because I care about every person that I come in contact with, even those I don't (come in contact with). Also, remember the meaning of christianity- love thy neighbor (even if they are not christian) and let God do the judging, not you.


i agree (none / 0) (#214)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 08:32:23 PM PST
You know damn right!


 
Kettle still holding on line two, Pot. (1.00 / 1) (#62)
by Lint on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 01:29:22 PM PST
Honestly, if you are going to accuse us "liberalists" (as always, the all-inclusive term for any person or point of view with which the conservative disagrees, in insult form) of being incapable of "differentiating between a personal, subjective `truth', and a factual, objective `truth'", why don't you stop generalizing and speaking of those generalizations as if they were "truth". Is the statement:

As always, liberalist have a termendous(sic) problem differentiating between a personal, subjective "truth", and a factual, objective "truth".

truth? Does it even rank as a "subjective" truth? Or is it merely an opinion formulated by you, as you are entitled? If this is the case, and you are entitled to opinion, wouldn't that same entitlement be awarded to the AR? After all, subjectively, we are all entitled to our own definition of "truth". But that does not make subjective "truth" true for all.

Perhaps SpaceGhoti was referring to your ego, pot. This would make sense, based on your predisposition to debunk the opinions of others with arguments based merely on nothing but your own opinions, which you tend to restate as if they were fact. Which is ironic.

Watch what you say, dear tkatchev. You can't keep catching yourself in contradictions forever.


Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

Personal truth. (none / 0) (#90)
by tkatchev on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 02:13:24 AM PST
What matters is that some things that are obviously true from my viewpoint are false from yours.

What's worse is the fact that it is utterly impossible for you to see my viewpoint without reliving my life in all of its entirety; which means that rather than going into a genital-size war about whose "truth" is better, it is much more advantageous to try and see the other person's viewpoint the way he see it, instead of trying to disprove it right off the bat.

But, I wouldn't expect you to understand anything out my tirade. As a liberalist, your ideas of "tolerance" extend only to the ideas that make you comfortable. (That was my own personal "truth"; I'm explaining because liberalists usually have a long-standing conflict with reality.)


--
Peace and much love...




Opinion. (none / 0) (#102)
by Lint on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 09:28:55 AM PST
My problem is with your need to generalize and state those generalizations as if they were fact. Opinions and generalizations are not mutually exclusive, whether or not you label them as "subjective" truth.

Your opinion of liberals is fine, and is your right to express freely. However, it is also a generalization as you are not making allowances for those liberals who do not have a long-standing conflict with reality, who do not define tolerance subjectively, and who do not fall under the various generalized statements you have made on their character.

As it would be impossible for you to actually know each and every liberal in the manner you are to which referring, your statements concerning the nature of liberalists are merely conjecture. Opinion, yes, but far from any form of truth, either subjective or objective.

Just so that you understand my point of view-- "liberal bashing" does not hurt my feelings, make me mad, offend me or in any other way make me emotional. As a liberal, and having first-hand knowledge as such, there are many liberals and conservatives alike who deserve ridicule for their extremist philosophies and inability to look outside of their own individual views to consider those of the "other side".

My issue, again, is your tendency to generalize. For me to say that all conservatives are insensitive or irrational based on a few examples would be wrong. And for me to say, "As a conservative, your ideas of 'tolerance' extend only to the ideas that make you comfortable" would also be wrong, because the fact that you are conservative does not give me allowance to make other judgments on your character. The issue could be the type of car one drives, or where one went to school, rather than this liberalist/conservative nonsense for all that matters--assuming the character of another based on a few facts is still disrespectful, invalid and doesn't make for productive discussion. I hope you see my point.

But, I wouldn't expect you to understand anything out my tirade.

Oh, I think I have understood quite a few things "out your tirade", as you say. Don't sell yourself short, tkatchev old pal. Occasionally you are quite understandable, and would make an interesting person to discuss various issues with, if only you would get over that pesky habit of restating old claims rather than moving off onto exciting new discourse territory.

Glad to be of help! :)


Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

 
liberalist (none / 0) (#180)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 03:28:32 PM PST
I have never seen such a prejudiced statement. Obviously you don't know any liberlists. Also, there is no such thing as a "subjective truth". That's called an opinion, my dear.


 
You know... (1.00 / 1) (#63)
by SpaceGhoti on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 01:37:23 PM PST
I don't know where I might have gotten that idea from (I'd provide more links, but even I don't have that much time on my hands).

Must be my liberal philosophy muddling my brain again.


A troll's true colors.

 
God Vs. Marijuana, (I like to call it "CHONG& (none / 0) (#206)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 10:47:21 PM PST
I must speak after reading "god Hating" in the Marijuana / Religion discussion.

Studying and Worshipping god killed, kills and will kill an exponentially larger amount of people than any drug, category A B or whatever.


feh (none / 0) (#207)
by nathan on Mon Jan 21st, 2002 at 11:19:03 AM PST
I must speak...

We'd rather you didn't. What's the matter, been stoned so long that you're responding to two-week-dead threads?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Video games (none / 0) (#56)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 10:03:25 AM PST
I can't recall where i saw this anymore, but I saw a study done showing that playing computer and video games has actually had quite a positive effect on youth. It showed that a large percent of computer and video game "geeks" led to getting high paying technology and computer oriented jobs. Seems quite the opposite of all this junk said about how they cause children to be violent.


You don't know what "opposite" means, do (none / 0) (#65)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 02:06:31 PM PST
Are you telling us that people in high paying technology jobs cannot possibly be violent? Since you're quoting imaginary research, I expect it will be no trouble for you to refer to another fabricated study proving that technogeeks can't commit violence.


well (none / 0) (#78)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 08:12:27 PM PST
Considering this entire posted article is based on imaginary "research" or the completely limited observations and conjectures of one person, I think you should cut the author of that comment a little slack.


 
Thank God. (1.66 / 3) (#12)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 06:17:30 PM PST
"intelligent young men and women who were on their ways to becoming engineers, scientists and theologians, turning into furniture movers, burger flippers and custodians,"

Thank god! at least a burger flipper has less real negative impact on other people's innocent lives.


 
Re: Marijuana is the worst drug... (1.00 / 2) (#8)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 04:36:28 PM PST
It goes without saying that this is an editorial piece. Regardless, I feel the need to assert that it is not based on factual information or even, apparently, any kind of anecdotal evidence.

Your claim is made up front: "Marijuana is an insideous beast." The rest of your ramblings do little to further your case and are little more than a repetitive insistence on the same theme.

You have a right to your opinion, of course. You don't, however, have the right to manipulate the truth. There is an obvious tone of distaste, if not outright resentment and loathing, towards marijuana and marijuana users from the outset of your piece. You begin calling them "pot heads". You then go on to make wild, unsupported claims like, "Even though methamphetamine and cocaine are highly addictive they don't lend themselves to the same type of total, long-term personality saturation." Anyone who has known closely someone with a serious substance-abuse problem knows that this is simply not true. There a couple of members of my extended family, one in particular, with whom I know this does not ring true. There are still more that I have made the acquaintence of. Your continued claims in this vein such as, "They are drugs that reinforce the concept of moderation, at least among users who value their lives," are preposterous. People who value their lives don't do methampetamine and cocaine. I've seen this too many times firsthand to believe otherwise and I can only assume that you lack this experience based on your claims.

Furthermore, your defense of socially acceptable substance abusers like alcoholics and smokers is beyond the pale. To assert that relaxing with a drink is "fundamentally different" than smoking marijuana for reason of the supposed inability to converse while under that influence shows your total ignorance of the reality of these substances and inexperience with their typical users. Have you ever even been to a bar? Trying carrying on a conversation with a drunk person. Better yet, you can try talking to my drunk aunt the next time she calls. You couldn't stop there, though. You had to assert that "there are alcoholics, but they are definitely a small minority." How many people are alcoholics? About 5% of the adult population. That's no small number, and though it is a minority in comparison to the total adult population it's no small slice when it comes to the substance abusing portion of this populous. I can only assume that you have never actually known a junky either. You sound so certain when you claim "Every junkie knows that they are a junkie." I know quite a few young people who have experimented with heroin and for all of them but a couple (read: the rare exceptions) it has been true that they get quite near the brink of disaster (read: overdose) before they ever kick the habit... if they ever do. The mode of operations is usually an extended period of relapse and recovery in a cycle that is hurtful to everyone who has to watch someone they love suffer through it, but most of all it is harmful to the person going through the morale shredding process of giving in to their addiction over and over again. What brings them down this long path is denial: "I'm not a junky. I'm not addicted."

You are, as mentioned above, entitled to your opinions. However, if we are ever to actually deal with our country's drug problems as adults we have to stop re-iterating the same old lies and drug war mythos and start telling the truth. I have a challenge for you. Assuming that you are old enough, go down to your local bar for three nights in a row. Look for the people who were there all three nights. They are your alcoholics. I'll bet you that they're smokers, too. Go introduce yourself, but wait until after midnight (don't worry, they'll still be there). Try and strike up a conversation and see what you get. Then try going back a week later and see if they can even remember you. We need to stop pointing the finger, as you have, at the drug, or "insideous beast", and come together in the realization that substance abuse is a problem. It's a very valid problem that quite a few people have.

People who abuse themselves in this way have deeper personal issues that need to be addressed and they do not get the recognition and help that they need in our system. They are criminalized and demoralized. In California you can receive SSI, a social security benefit like disability, for certain mental disorders. Usually this is granted for varying forms of depression and other types of personality disorders. Why can these people, people with a valid mental health issue, receive money, treatment and medication when we leave people with substance abuse issues out in the cold, often for dead? I urge you and everyone else to take the time to educate yourselves about the realities of these issues. They are issues that we will all have to face together, and the only way we can address them adequately is with the proper information.


Ok (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by zikzak on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 06:22:55 PM PST
Well, I certainly appreciated your long, rambling, proselytizing rant against addiction. I must say, it didn't come across as a tired, worn out, cliche riddled pile of pablum at all. However, you would do better if you could manage to stick to the topic at hand. Here, let me reprint it for you:
Let me state up front that we will not be discussing the morality of the drug war, "gateway drugs", legalization, glaucoma or hemp. The title is Why marijuana is the worst drug. We will be evaluating it solely in comparison to other narcotics and mind altering substances.
You see, we are not discussing an After School Special or a topic on Oprah. I am pointing out that marijuana use has serious negative effects in comparison to other drugs, effects that habitual marijuana users are too stoned to even be aware of.

If you wish to try to defend marijuana, please do so. If you wish to embark on an addict treatment crusade, please do so somewhere else.

And don't quote dubious Canadian health statistics to bolster your cause. We already know that country is full of hopeless drunks.


You're sidestepping his rebuttal (none / 0) (#177)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 02:16:26 PM PST
Stop trying to "impress" us with your cunning linguistics. Get off your "high" horse. After you have done that, try your hand at addressing the points made in his rebuttal to your own *rant* against marijuana. Judging by your comments, like "If you wish to try to defend marijuana," and "We already know that country is full of hopeless drunks," you feel better equipped to spout red herrings than respond intelligently.

If you want to be taken seriously, lay off the sarcasm is my suggestion. What you do is confuse the reader, making them guess where you are being "for real" and where you are being "funny".

As for the topic at hand, "evaluating it solely in comparison to other narcotic and mind altering substances" - that is what the rebuttal comments addressed. You are criticizing the poster for not addressing the *topic* at hand, but it appears more like you just don't want to address their *comments*.

One other thing. It's obvious that you have more than half a brain, and that you love sarcasm. So what is your motivation? Are you on the side of government propaganda, as your "analysis" smacks of brochure snippets, or are you trying to denounce such crap in a reverse-psychology sort of way?


 
Drugs (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Slubberdegullion on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 06:35:12 PM PST
People who value their lives don't do methampetamine and cocaine
This is very similar to the point that the author was trying to make. People who value their lives will not use these drugs, or if they do it will only be once or twice. They will, however, do marijuana, despite the fact that it is just as harmful in its long-term effects.
What brings them down this long path is denial: "I'm not a junky. I'm not addicted."
Giving up a drug has nothing to do with admitting you have a problem. Addiction is often a physical thing, and people trying to give up a drug will experience violent withdrawal symptoms. What brings them down this long path is their addiction to the substance, combined with the saturation of pro-drug messages such as your own in our culture(lies and drug war mythos)


 
Quick call an ambulance! (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by osm on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 06:36:55 PM PST
You're heart is bleeding all over the place. I'm sick and tired of this apologetic, whining, liberal slop.

"Marijuana addicts aren't responsible for their behavior, they have a problem that must be addressed by feeling their pain and sharing their feelings with the group."

It's time people in this country started taking some fucking responsibilities for their behavior, no matter how vile. Marijuana addiction is not a "problem" that needs to be "treated". It's a crime that must be punished. I couldn't even begin to guess how much money is thrown away in this economy because of incompetent pot-heads who have their "civil rights" protected by Clinton-era Feel-Good Legislation.

Do you know what they do to pot-heads in Russia? They fucking send them to Siberia to mine Uranium. That's right. They take a worthless mass of stoned flesh and turn it into something useful. At least until the radiation poisoning kicks in. And - boy! You don't hear anything about a drug problem in Russia, do you?

Yeah, I say it's time we put an end to the Oprah Culture (I was pleased to see zikzak use the same reference in his reply to your drivel) and start calling a crime a crime.


Yeah, dood, (none / 0) (#96)
by derek3000 on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 06:01:19 AM PST
Russia is in great shape. No drugs there!

If you really want to talk about wasting money, why don't you talk about the money spent on the war on drugs? I know you feel that using marijuana is a crime, but it hurts no one else but the user. To spend as much money as we do to prevent people from making decisions that affect only themselves is the true waste of money.

But I guess you'll chime in with something about "society" and how it would be for "everyone's benefit" if marijuana were illegal. That is true liberal drivel that should be ignored at all costs.




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

 
I dont want your talking about..... (1.00 / 1) (#14)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 06:28:47 PM PST
But i find doing drugs to be one of the nessisites of life. Humanity for generations have been doing drugs for recreational and spiritual purposes.
Anyway pot is one of the safer drugs out there, the only reason why pot "ruins" your life is due to the laws and ignorance surrounding it.



Re: Typical response from drug abuser (5.00 / 3) (#16)
by fractured clavicle on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 06:36:11 PM PST
But i find doing drugs to be one of the nessisites of life. Humanity for generations have been doing drugs for recreational and spiritual purposes. Anyway pot is one of the safer drugs out there, the only reason why pot "ruins" your life is due to the laws and ignorance surrounding it.
You have just proven the point of the article. Your incoherent logic, miserable grammar, and 2nd grade spelling all point out exactly how dangerous marijuana is. Seemingly not satisfied by your own shameful writing, you then go on to spread disinformation about the government. You anti-government drug abusers have had it all too easy if you ask me.


 
Oh goody! (5.00 / 3) (#17)
by zikzak on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 06:36:51 PM PST
Another fuzzy headed nitwit spews forth a couple moronic sentences that are both meaningless and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Does us a favor and re-read the story once you've sobered up a bit, ok? Thanks.


 
Neither do I. (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 07:44:17 PM PST
I've been smoking marijuana for 5 years, and I can tell you from experience that the above article is absolute bullshit. I'm a fairly successful senior programmer/sysadmin for a fairly successful business and I love what I do, and have no problems working to achieve my goals while under the influence of marijuana. I routinely smoke $50-100 worth of marijuana a day, yet I have retained all of my mental faculties. There have been many occasions that I have smoked rather massive amounts of marijuana (2-4 ounces) in rather short periods of time (1-2 hours) and gone to work and performed admirably. I have designed and implemented a VPN for a fortune 500 company WHILE STONED. I have written essays which were apparently worthy of A's while stoned. The list goes on and on. To say that marijuana somehow impedes creativity or that marijuana makes the user "feel that the drug has little real effect" is nonsense. I feel the effect right now, a wonderful physiological state which
cannot be achieved by any other means. Perhaps you haven't gotten your hands on any decent pot?

$15 dollar 1/4 ounces don't give you a good impression about the effects of marijuana.

HEY, LOOK, THAT POST HAD NO SPELLING ERRORS *STOP THE PRESSES*


Nope. You fail, too (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by zikzak on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 08:00:45 PM PST
Re-read the 3rd to last paragraph, please. Thanks.

I'm eagerly awaiting one intelligent argument from a pot head. I suspect I may be waiting for quite a long time.


Oh no... (none / 0) (#21)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 08:11:54 PM PST
Eagerly awaiting intelligent argument? I smoke pot and I enjoy it, yet I live in a nice, clean house, and am as productive as any adequacy.org reader. That, in and of itself, is an intelligent argument.


so where is it? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by philipm on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 08:30:09 PM PST
Reading something and completely missing the point doesn't make you smart. Writing something intelligent is a much better indicator.

I eagerly await your writing something intelligent.


--philipm

blah blah blah (none / 0) (#34)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 09:30:26 PM PST
I think I'm going to write an article about all the different sorts of snobby USENET fags in existence, would that prove I'm intelligent?


it depends (none / 0) (#36)
by philipm on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 09:34:13 PM PST
That would depend on which particular fags you picked, Mr ass-spelunker.

Is pot really that great? I should try it.


--philipm

 
Translating the pot-head lingo (5.00 / 3) (#29)
by osm on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 08:47:40 PM PST
pot-head lingo

Eagerly awaiting intelligent argument? I smoke pot and I enjoy it

translation

"I'm so stoned, I can have hours of fun staring at a grateful dead album cover and spinning around in an empty field."

pot-head lingo

yet I live in a nice, clean house,

translation

"My parents are rich and I am spoiled rotten. I'm 25, living in my parent's basement, and my mom still cleans my room and does my laundry. While I sleep until 3pm and watch MTV until I pass out again at 7pm."

pot-head lingo

and am as productive as any adequacy.org reader.

translation

"I'm a flaming fucking moron who thinks Richard Stalimann is the second coming of Christ and regularly engage in acts of illegal fornication and hacking."

pot-head lingo

That, in and of itself, is an intelligent argument.

translation

"What was I saying?"


blah blah (none / 0) (#33)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 09:24:30 PM PST
You newsgroup guys are all the same. Take a post, dissect it, attempt to demean the original poster by using big words and pretty HTML formatting and all that good stuff. By perfecting this somewhat gay form of dialectic you've managed to ensure that future generations of snobby intellectual bitches get the oppurtunity to make themselves a little more sure that they are, in fact, smarter than the entire population of the Planet Earth. I applaud you, osm.


No (none / 0) (#39)
by osm on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 09:39:55 PM PST
You newsgroup guys are all the same. Take a post, dissect it, attempt to demean the original poster by using big words and pretty HTML formatting and all that good stuff.

Big words? Did you drop out of the eighth grade? Maybe you should cut down to a 1/4 ounce an hour there, buddy.

By perfecting this somewhat gay form of dialectic you've managed to ensure that future generations of snobby intellectual bitches get the oppurtunity to make themselves a little more sure that they are, in fact, smarter than the entire population of the Planet Earth.

If you think I'm a snobby intellectual bitch, then you are in a very sad state indeed.

I applaud you, osm.

and I pity you, you anonymous fuck.


Eight grade (none / 0) (#41)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 09:51:47 PM PST
Don't even get me started.


Only self starters need apply (none / 0) (#120)
by Anonymous Coward on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 05:45:48 PM PST
OK
-- Support the home page homeless.

 
Furthermore... (1.00 / 1) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 08:15:39 PM PST
I just downloaded your post with a modified version of *GASP* WGET!!!! I'm going to hell *sad face*


 
User-agent string (none / 0) (#24)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 08:20:26 PM PST
I wonder how you guys will diffrentiate wget from konqueror if the user-agent strings are identical - in court, that is =D


Easy, fool. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by osm on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 08:35:37 PM PST
We will use advanced internet technologies innovated by Microsoft for the precise purpose of identifying your illegal hacker tools.

Good luck finding Marijuana in a maximum security federal prison. I hope you're into big, smelly men.


Don't forget (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by zikzak on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 08:41:09 PM PST
the top secret, proprietary module that allows us to find the IP address of any poster, even those who think they are 'Anonymous'.


 
Cool (none / 0) (#30)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 08:51:32 PM PST
haha innovated by microsoft? Is the sole purpose of this site to annoy *nix users?


The sole purpose of this site (none / 0) (#31)
by osm on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 08:55:57 PM PST
is to reveal the truth, no matter how controversial or (in the case of Microsoft's innovations) obvious.


liar (none / 0) (#32)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 09:14:57 PM PST
I think this site was founded for a single, and not so obvious reason - to piss off users of *nix and revel in it. After reviewing your previous posts to this site, osm, I have come to the conclusion that you are a *nix hating gypsy who sit around and plays Deus Ex while drinking diet pepsi and talking about the stock market with your second cousin in Minneapolis on your 2.4ghz shiny metallic cordless phone.

Also, with opera 6.0 TP2 for linux, this site won't allow you to post after previewing a message. What a sad sad rip of slashcode. =(


I guess you can't read, then. (none / 0) (#35)
by osm on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 09:32:48 PM PST
I think this site was founded for a single, and not so obvious reason - to piss off users of *nix and revel in it.

Let's see how many articles on the front page have anything all to do with hating "*nix":

"Why marijuana is the worst drug"
Nope. Not that one.

"My inlaws are not fertile"
Hmmm. That one doesn't either.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, terrorism, and decolonisation"
Well, so far it would seem you are hallucinating.

"Review: Saint Luke's Christmas Eve Candlelight Service"
Looks like a pattern is developing. Absolutely fucking nothing about hating "*nix"

"Happy Birthday Christ!"
An article about Christ and His love for us on his birthday. Nothing at all about "*nix" in there.

"Security, Microsoft, and You"
I don't know why this should "piss off" users of "*nix". It has nothing to do with "*nix".

"Uncle OSM's Guide to Covert Dating: Episode II"
My very own article giving dating tips to those of our readers unlucky in love. Nary a mention of anything even remotely computer related.

"Linux Zealot learns a valuable lesson."
Well, I guess this would qualify, even though it's true.

So, let's see, out of EIGHT articles on the front page, only ONE could even be remotely viewed as anti-"*nix".

Oh, wait, you're a pot-head. I guess the paranoia is catching up with you.


Yes! (none / 0) (#40)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 09:50:42 PM PST
Apparently, you can't read. I said "not so obvious", didn't I? Yes - yes I did. Let me give you a few examples:

1. The banning of wget as an HTTP client.
2. The excessive slander of Richard Stallman - not that I like him or anything, but still.
3. haha your gay haha


No, you still can't read (none / 0) (#47)
by osm on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 12:20:59 AM PST
Apparently, you can't read. I said "not so obvious", didn't I? Yes - yes I did.

I can read just fine. I read all those articles and only TWO even had anything to do with computers AT ALL. It's less than "not so obvious" - it's the product of a childish, growth-stunted, paranoid, delusional pot-head.

Let me give you a few examples:

Oh please do. You're 1st grade level use of the English language is growing on me.

1. The banning of wget as an HTTP client.

wget is an illegal open source hacker tool

2. The excessive slander of Richard Stallman - not that I like him or anything, but still.

Richard Stalimann is a thief and admitted communist.

3. haha your gay haha

Better watch out, mommy and da-da might take away your 'puter if they find you talking like that.

At this point you're just trolling and are off-topic. The subject of this article is "Why marijuana is the worst drug". Not that I expect you to have much of an attention span, but at least make an effort.

Any further off topic posts will be deleted.


blah blah (none / 0) (#48)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 02:56:29 AM PST
There you go again, with your flamboyantly gay USENET dialectic. Insult my english, then reiterate how horrible marijuana and open source are, yada yada yada. It's all about freedom, and that's what you don't seem to understand. The fact that I enjoy smoking pot and using open source software is just a reflection of my aversion towards the brand of corporate welfare our society seems to be heading towards. It's about knowing that you can sit in your own home, that you paid for with money that you worked for, and smoke marijuana with your friends. It's about knowing that you can give one of the aforementioned friends a copy of your favorite operating system without worrying about violating several international treaties and going to hell for your efforts. It's about pride, and it's most certainly not about paying more than $30 for an operating system that rarely does what you tell it to do.


more doper-speak (none / 0) (#54)
by osm on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 06:29:20 AM PST
You seem to have a hangup about homosexuals. Probably another manifestation of the paranoia years of marijuana abuse has instilled in you. Of course, the rest of your breathless paragraph is just more tripe of the brand you have been spouting all day.

Please shut up now and go back to your pot den and your illegal hacker OS before I kick you.



 
*Yawn* (none / 0) (#91)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 03:22:18 AM PST
The banning of wget as an HTTP client.

Wget runs in windows, too. Thus this has nothing to do with Unix.

The excessive slander of Richard Stallman - not that I like him or anything, but still.

Slander is a serious accusation. I don't think you can back it up.

haha your gay haha

You seem to be sexually insecure.


Sirs (none / 0) (#186)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 03:12:25 PM PST
Anonymous reader, this really proves what a sophisticated debater you are. You follow up to yourself and defend a completly different argument. Playing devils advocate are we?

Tell us, Anonymous Reader, what do you really feel on the subject?


--
Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright © 2002, Martino Cortez.

 
idiots (none / 0) (#125)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 06:23:15 AM PST
they got lots more anti linux articles, just not on front, including How To tell if your son is a computer hacker, which says that Linux is an illegal OS stolen from the government by russian terrorists. Also, Opera is 500% better than IE, so non-standard my ass. IE is only standard because they got lots of corporate backing. Opera's quality is much better, as well as its features and speed.


 
slashcode (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by error27 on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 09:36:00 PM PST
>>What a sad sad rip of slashcode. =(

This site doesn't use slashcode. It uses a highly proprietary version of scoop. (Read the bottom of the page.)


Sorry (none / 0) (#43)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 09:56:36 PM PST
We all make mistakes - it is striking similar to slashdot as far as the layout is concerned, though.