> >You would have to pretend that someone smoking only pot would
> >drive badly -- which drivers on pot do not do. No one has ever been
> >high on THC while driving and killed someone because their judgement
> >had been "suspended". On alcholhol? Yes. On pot? No.
> OK - against my better judgement....
> I used to have a friend who indulged in smoking pot. When not
> under the influence he was a reasonable driver, but, when stoned
> he was totally incapable of driving safely. He would run stop
> signs (he did not notice them), run lights, and generally not
> pay nearly enough attention to the task at hand (i.e., driving).
> During the period i knew him, he was involved in 5 accidents
> (all under the influence, none involving deaths). I do not
> know if he eventually killed anyone or himself.
One friend? I would hardly call that reliable evidence. That is
called generalization and stereotyping.
> >There has never been any risk for pot.
> Do you really believe this or is it a taunt? Inhaling the smoke
> of burning leaves of anything is undoubtedly bad for ones health.
I know that pot is not a risk. While smoking the burning leaves of
anything is bad for ones health, so is eating fried or smoked anything,
such as steak. I wouldn't call eating steak a risk, would you?
> (Perhaps pot brownies are safer.) Lapses of ones attention while
> driving or operating heavy equipment can be very dangerous to
> the operator or unlucky bystanders.
> Clearly pot has some effect on humans (or why bother to indulge in
> a relatively expensive, illegal activity).
So does eating sugar.
>Many (most, all?)
> people who use pot acknowledge short term memory deficiencies.
> Many people around pot smokers notice significant behaviour
> changes when the user lights up (though only some of these
> modified behaviours are 'bad'; e.g., forgetfulness, self-indulgent
> behaviours, paranoia (freaking out), etc.). Many who use
> pot, then do a creative activity (like writing a story, drawing
> a picture) are disappointed with the results when the effects of
> the drug wear off.
This is just hearsay.
> Not to say that i am against the use of this or other drugs. But
> better to go into an endeavor with ones eyes open, so to speak...
And not fooled by propaganda. That is the whole reason I brought
this subject up. Most everything that people believe about pot is
hearsay and stereotyping and not reality. Most people refuse to
believe that it isn't hearsay or stereotyping because people don't
want to admit that they have been brainwashed into beleiving
something that wasn't true.
> So - what is it you want by your continued insistence that pot
> cannot ever be harmful in any way, whatsoever? What beliefs do
> you have that make you not only have the view that it is reasonably
> safe, but absolutely, positively safe beyond any possibility of
> error. Do you really believe that no individual be effected in a
> deleterious fashion by pot? Do you think that perhaps pot should
> be not only allowed, but its use mandated for its potential health
> benefits?
It isn't my insistance. Doesn't anybody do anything more than
speculate? Doesn't anybody check out the facts or do research?
"A Primer of Drug Action" is easy to find and look at any bookstore
in America. What is so hard to verify it?
> PS - if it is not too personal of a question, do you use pot?
> If so, about how much? If the question is too personal.
> i apologize for asking.
No need to apologize...I understand your curiousity. No, I don't
smoke pot.
> PPS - How long was it before cigarettes were found to be unhealthy?
How long before it was found that the public had not been notified of the
unhealthy effects of cigarettes?
> The tobacco lobby made arguments that smoking was never shown
> to have negative effects on smokers until about a decade ago
> when, due to massive formal tests, they could not deny it
> anymore. Of course, the evidence for smoking causing harm
> was not that hard to discern to the casual observer (but that
> is not scientific).
Cancers forming are not easy to discern.