Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Fraggle Rocker, Jan 7, 2007.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
In defense of the big bad drug companies, I would say they are not intentionally imperilling potentially life-long customers and uncontrollable side effects are to be expected. It's hardly in their best interest to have a high death/negative side effect count. Unlike some dealer who has his own garage lab.. Besides, American people are infatuated with overregulation and they are unsettled by the fact that street drugs are not monitored. That does not explain the glitter of 'sophisticated booze' though (Cristal, etc)..
All drugs are bad...they destroy the kidneys. However drugs are usefull in controlling the species population, where those organisms with genetic info leading them to problems are killed off eventually by drugs.
What about antibiotics?
I wouldnt know.
You do have a point.
Unfortunately, every medication you take has side affects !!!!!
Side affects are however rare - but sometimes severe ........ often also related to the dose you are taking ( low dose = fewer side affects ) ...
In the end, it is a balance of good effect (on the disease) - as well as bad effects - that determines whether the use of the medicine is allowed or not ..........
However, sometimes the bad effect is not known untill after using the medicine on a large number of patients .... remember vioxx and thalidomide !!!!! Well - Thalidomide damage - was probably a case of poor scientific research - I do not know if Ames test existed in those days ....
I do take medicine, when necessary - but I allways choose medicine , that has been available for many years .... and I always read carefully about the side affects , before I take any medicine .....
Still, sometimes people have to accept some side affects - especially if you are dealing with a serious disease .......
Often the side affects comes slowly - that means that you can become aware of them , before they become serious and stop taking the medication (or reduce the dose together with your doctor ) - or perhaps even change into another medication ......
Edited : No - Ames test invented in the 70 ´s - I just looked at Wikipedia ... ( Ames test is a test for mutagenic and carcinogenic potentials for a chemical compound )
Well kids just should not be given psychoactive drugs period. I've said that consistently. Their endocrine systems have not matured, their personalities are still malleable, and they don't even have a lot of experience with the world to have a solid reference frame of what's real and what's not. At the very least, high school-age kids should not be smoking pot, dropping acid, or doing any of the less benign drugs like ecstasy and cocaine. I think most college kids would also turn out better if they backed way off on the stuff. Childhood is bloody tough but it's a rite of passage. The last thing we should be doing is giving children an escape from reality. If they don't learn how to deal with it now, just exactly when will they?
We didn't have the stuff you call "drugs" in my day but back then nobody even thought of caffeine as a "drug." As one of the unfortunate people who is highly sensitive to it (two ounces of cola in a measuring cup keeps me bouncing off the ceiling all weekend) I became addicted before I even had any idea what was going on. My life would be so much different if my mother hadn't started giving me a cup of tea with breakfast every day when I was about twelve.
The problem with Western society's current ideas of permissive parenting and children as just little adults is... they just flat are not "little adults." They cannot cope with the same responsibilities and if we give them the freedom to try they'll turn themselves into pretty dysfunctional "adult adults."
In my extensive and interesting life I've had plenty of opportunity to compare pot smokers to boozers and as far as I'm concerned your comparison of the two is a no-brainer. I had three buddies kill themselves by driving drunk in a single decade. I don't know anyone who's ever so much as made a passenger gasp, much less have an accident, while driving stoned. And lest someone comes back with the criticism that alcohol is so much more prevalent, let's then just limit this to the 1960s when that was most emphatically not true for our generation.
Traffic deaths aren't caused by marijuana, they are cause by people driving.... how does marijuana cause traffic deaths?
That's like saying guns shoot people....
As someone mentioned, it's not just marijuana that's in their system, they're usually coked up or drunk as well.
Aside from alcohol, wanna know what causes more accidents than marijuana? Prescription/legal drugs, heh. People taking sleeping pills before they leave work so it'll kick in once they get home, taking muscle relaxers, or any other numerous and legally attainable drug while driving.
There's a reason why with a lot of drugs, there's a warning label not to operate any heavy machinery, unfortunately people think it only means cranes and tractors, I guess, heh.
Didn't Socrates suggest against using drugs to treat illness? Anyway, I happen to know that perscription cough syrup can be WAAY more mind altering than weed(and actually even coke). This kid watched my dued fuck his sister on that stuff.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You could just stick "sodomy" in there and see if anyone noticed.
Ever thought that people who have leanings to mental disorders tend to be more inclinded to smoking pot?
Wow! There's a second person on SciForums who understands the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Why thankyouPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Maybe that's because Americans only understand when you speak 'American'.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Separate names with a comma.