Conquer Club

Snorri1234 wrote:

ritz627 wrote:
Not only that, but there is not a shred of evidence the smoking causes stupidity, or loss of brain cells.

Well it does cause short-term memory loss or whatever it is. Generally, when you're high and shortly thereafter you can't really study or learn.

Yea, but that is quite a minor thing, it just causes short term memory loss of things that happened when you were high when you come back in a non-altered state. And what's interesting is that when you get high again, that memory comes back because it is a state-base memory. It is not actually causing any damage to the brain.

This is a paradoxical thread.
If you do smoke the gange, then chances are you can (like me), barely type.
so my response is ghgrhhehyeah

Anarkistsdream wrote:Actually, Snorri, that's not true... What studies show is that if you study stoned, you need to take the test or write the report stoned. I know some people that find it easier to focus, study, and learn while high....

Yea true - its a state based memory - as long as you take the test high, you can remember everything equally if not better. I learned that in psychology - finally a real-world application.

ritz627 wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

ritz627 wrote:
Not only that, but there is not a shred of evidence the smoking causes stupidity, or loss of brain cells.

Well it does cause short-term memory loss or whatever it is. Generally, when you're high and shortly thereafter you can't really study or learn.

Yea, but that is quite a minor thing, it just causes short term memory loss of things that happened when you were high when you come back in a non-altered state. And what's interesting is that when you get high again, that memory comes back because it is a state-base memory. It is not actually causing any damage to the brain.

Yeah no damage, I know.

ritz627 wrote:

Anarkistsdream wrote:Actually, Snorri, that's not true... What studies show is that if you study stoned, you need to take the test or write the report stoned. I know some people that find it easier to focus, study, and learn while high....

Yea true - its a state based memory - as long as you take the test high, you can remember everything equally if not better. I learned that in psychology - finally a real-world application.

Really? Never tried that.

Snorri1234 wrote:

ritz627 wrote:

Anarkistsdream wrote:Actually, Snorri, that's not true... What studies show is that if you study stoned, you need to take the test or write the report stoned. I know some people that find it easier to focus, study, and learn while high....

Yea true - its a state based memory - as long as you take the test high, you can remember everything equally if not better. I learned that in psychology - finally a real-world application.

Really? Never tried that.

I did once in University.

Didn't work.

Have to say, of all the drugs i've done, although i loved it and had some great times on the weed, i reckon its potentially the most dangerous drug-including heroin, which isnt so bad if you've got clean equipment and infinite cash.

Anarkistsdream wrote:MMA... Mixed martial arts...

WTF are you talking about cola???

Actually, I'll admit, for a minute I thought you were going on about MDMA...getting on to the class A's

love you man

Heavily.

suggs wrote:Have to say, of all the drugs i've done, although i loved it and had some great times on the weed, i reckon its potentially the most dangerous drug-including heroin, which isnt so bad if you've got clean equipment and infinite cash.

The most dangerous drug?? Haha, where do you come to that conclusion. It is widely considered to be the one of least dangerous of all drugs. It is virtually impossible to overdose on weed, its never been done. People have died while doing stupid things under the influence of weed (this happens often under the influence of alcohol, and any drug for that matter too), but never overdosed. Herion, unlike weed, is highly addictive, highly damaging, and at times, fatal. You also have meth, opium, prescription drugs, cocaine (including crack), synthetics, and main other drugs that I don't feel like naming right now that ranked much more dangerous than weed. Generally speaking, psychedelics (weed, 'shrooms, and LSD) are the least dangerous of all drugs to the human body. Man, I even consider alcohol to be more dangerous than weed. Unlike weed, you can OD on alcohol, and alcohol causes damage to the brain and liver (unlike weed). Alcohol is basically, when it comes down to it, a poison to the body (again, unlike weed).

HungrySomali wrote:Heavily.

How do you stay so thin? I always snack like a beast afterwards.

darvlay wrote:

HungrySomali wrote:Heavily.

How do you stay so thin? I always snack like a beast afterwards.

Atkins.

yes, you're quite right, its unlikely that anyone has ever died of a gange overdose-prob impossible.
Its the psychological consequences for SOME people. For most people, its prob "mostly harmless". but i know a few guys who went off the rails on it.
Admitedly they smoked stupid amounts.
Basically, if you enjoy it, then you'll be alright.
But if (like me), it makes you feel a bit weird, its prob. best to give it a miss.
What were we taliking about?

Anarkistsdream wrote:MMA... Mixed martial arts...

WTF are you talking about cola???

you said you were fighting MMA. I was about to launch a telethon appeal.

Gang-raping people after getting fired up on booze and coke.

suggs wrote:yes, you're quite right, its unlikely that anyone has ever died of a gange overdose-prob impossible.
Its the psychological consequences for SOME people. For most people, its prob "mostly harmless". but i know a few guys who went off the rails on it.
Admitedly they smoked stupid amounts.
Basically, if you enjoy it, then you'll be alright.
But if (like me), it makes you feel a bit weird, its prob. best to give it a miss.
What were we taliking about?

True. For a few people, it was found to be psychologically addicting, but I don't believe ever physically addicting (same thing with alcohol in that regard, I believe). But for the most part, it is considered to be a nonaddictive drug.

I hear you. That is the consensus.
But i was saying that half way through my third spliff of the day, 400 odd days since i hadnt had one.
But thats cos I'm a twat.
What annoys me is the whole polarisation of the debate over cannabis (I take that back about heroin-just a wind up, sorry!).
On the one side you have the stoners who maintain "No harm whatsoever" (tell that to my mate in the mental hospital)
and on the other side, the conservatives/republicans who claim that it "inevtiably leads to harder drugs, it kills people, lock them up blah blah".
This sounds boring, but its the old "Everything in moderation" solution i think.
And it should definitely be legalised. It would be safer-though probably more expensive!

Alcohol is physically addictive. Fact.

HungrySomali wrote:

darvlay wrote:

HungrySomali wrote:Heavily.

How do you stay so thin? I always snack like a beast afterwards.

:lol: Atkins.

Lollercaust to the max

Guiscard wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Guiscard wrote:(and I mean this entirely non-patronisingly)

sure you do.

Yes. I do. I remember being 15, funnily enough. You seem very intelligent, nappy. Well read, you have a brilliant vocabulary, even more so as someone who is bilingual. I'd wager you're much more informed and politically aware than the vast majority of your peers (even if I don't agree whatsoever with the conclusions you bring). On the other hand, and this is both painfully evident in some of your posts and confirmed by the clarification of your age, you suffer from a critical case of judging the world without experiencing it. You deride a state of lobotomised rubber-stamping public servants yet your experience of said 'system' can only be fairly limited. Not that I can particularly talk, as the academic world is one of the most insular and incestuous around. But I DO have friends who are social workers, friends who are teachers, friends who hate social workers and teachers. What teacher would admit they smoke cannabis to you? You would never mix with your teachers on a social level in such a way.

Guiscard, you may well say this. Perhaps, we all learn during the course of life, what can I say? Well, I'll thank you for not deriding me based on my age ... so far.
The system, it is true, is largely a psychological construct of my own in which I lump all the negative societal pressures that have a restrictive effect on the freedom which I feel naturally becoming to humanity via my own medium. In that sense, the system is different for every person, since it takes a different form, virus-like, leeching energy, dignity, freedom and courage from everyone. To fight the system, to have blind aggressive anger, though not hatred, yet nonetheless desire to utterly destroy it, is a necessary prerequisite for psychological health.
The system however takes real tangible form. To me, and you'll laugh, the system is epitomized by examination boards - OCR "recognising acheivment" - then stiffling it. They seek to deny the existence of the subjective analytical and critical faculties individual students may deploy at the expense of homogenised rote learning. Marxist Socialo-fascism, inspired by Hegel, in it's practice, but understand exam board as a metaphor for state...to a large my perception of the unhealthy and the system, of evil itself, is based on my experiences of education systems, and they're influence. No doubt as an academic you wll appreciate, if not agree or find intelligent, my discourse.
What is this system, which I talk of as an essenential paradigm of human psychology? A product of our destructive urge of the thanatos raging against what is it's natural setting in opposition to the unnatural, the system, the cumulative of the unnatural consequences of conscupiscience. However, resulting from the dichotomy of man, existing in his pre and post-lapsarian states, are the primal emotions and drives set within him by the Almighty that can lead either to virtue, a fight of the system, or vice, further enslavement to it, a theory I devise at once from Christian theology and of course, in Thomist tradition (Dancing Retard will appreciate), the philosopher's Ethics, which address the notion of overcoming primal urges whilst I interpret this a channeling, proper usage of them. To fail to use them is as to become a slave of system, and furthermore, to be robbed of dignity. The Romantics reconcile this proto-Nietzschian idea of rejection of chains and making of oneself as an individual with Christianity, as do other literary and psychological traditions. It is summed up in he words of one France's greatest heroes, Marécha Jean de Lattre de Tassigny : Ne Pas Subir, or "To Not be Subjected", though something cenral to this quote is lost in translation....
Hopefully this helps you understand my psychological creation of the system, which some, to my furor, have interpreted as neo-Marxist.

What a load of jargonized horseshit.

Your pride disgusts me.

darvlay wrote:What a load of jargonized horseshit.

Your pride disgusts me.

Pride? How so? Yes, certainly, a load of "jargonized horseshit" if you will, it would be courteous to be less vitiriolic, more polite and raffined in your choice of words, and provide reasons for your answer showing that you have considered more than one point of view, but my...pride? In what? Do you mean that the pride refers to the way in which I conceive of dignity as a freedom from systems and as a self-creation of the individual?

suggs wrote:I hear you. That is the consensus.
But i was saying that half way through my third spliff of the day, 400 odd days since i hadnt had one.
But thats cos I'm a twat.
What annoys me is the whole polarisation of the debate over cannabis (I take that back about heroin-just a wind up, sorry!).
On the one side you have the stoners who maintain "No harm whatsoever" (tell that to my mate in the mental hospital)
and on the other side, the conservatives/republicans who claim that it "inevtiably leads to harder drugs, it kills people, lock them up blah blah".
This sounds boring, but its the old "Everything in moderation" solution i think.
And it should definitely be legalised. It would be safer-though probably more expensive!

Couldn't agree more, it is harmful in some ways (to the lungs for example), but at the same time, I feel its harmful effects are way overblown by stereotypes (i.e "smoking weed makes you stupid and kills brain cells" - when in fact, it doesn't). People see it as comparable to cigarettes in its harm to lungs though, and frankly I just don't see it. Yes, maybe one joint may be equal to one cigarette in harmfulness, but people don't smoke weed nearly as often as cigarettes. ( A coupe joints a week vs. a pack of cigarettes every few days). Not to mention, it is, for the most part, non addictive. As for the "gateway drug" argument - I feel that it is only a gateway drug if you want it to be a gateway drug. In my experience, weed is usually used in junction with alcohol, not cocaine or heroin.

But making it more expensive, screw that!!! Haha, its already very expensive as it is now. And logically, I don't think it will get more expensive if legalized, but in fact, cheaper. Black markets cause higher prices. If the black market is eliminated, prices will...or should...drop considerably.

From an economic perspective alone, a 30% sales tax on drugs minus the cost of fighting the "war on drugs" makes it well worth the while.