It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is marijuana really as dangerous as heroin and LSD? Finally, a welcome legal review

page: 2
45
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr



When they say it "leads" to harder stuff, thats all that means.

And there is no proof that is true. People have been claiming this for years but they can never back that statement up with any facts. You will find the main reason that people use harder drugs is because someone else pushed them to do it. A dealer will always try to get the user to go to a more expensive drug because they make more profit.



Addiction and dependency on anything (cigarettes, food, alcohol) is a process of tolerance and acceptance. Once you accept a habit you become dependent on it. Repeated use lowers tolerance. One beer today is supplanted by two tomorrow to get the same effect. When beer isn't enough to satisfy the "dependency" anymore, then its on to harder alcohol. Same for drugs, food, cigarettes, whatever.

Pot has no psychical addictive properties but it does have a mild mental addiction but nowhere near the addiction of tobacco or alcohol. With pot repeated use doesn't lower tolerance simply because of the many different varieties of pot. With alcohol it is always the same be it beer, wine or whiskey because the main thing in them is alcohol. With pot however you have both THC and CDB and each strain is different so you really can't become tolerant to something that is constantly changing.




posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

Under current Fed law, yes, because it would be interstate commerce, or trafficking. The DEA could still pop you for bringing a Schedule A drug across state lines.

But considering they don't actively patrol state borders and usually show up when asked by the state LEO's or the Justice Dept, it's not likely to cause significant issues.

From what I understand anyway.

~Tenth



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
But that's what it's purpose is. No body is using vodka to sterilize medical equipment. Few people are using beer too make puffy batter for fish.
And few if any are growing cannabis to keep themselves in rope. reply to: and14263


Well in most places it is illegal to grow hemp so of course people aren't growing it for those uses. But if the laws were changed then people would start growing for those purposes. Mainly the real reason why they would grow is to use the fiber for clothing. Hemp is more durable than cotton and wears longer not to mention the old it gets the softer it gets.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
But that's what it's purpose is. No body is using vodka to sterilize medical equipment. Few people are using beer too make puffy batter for fish.
And few if any are growing cannabis to keep themselves in rope. reply to: and14263


Well in most places it is illegal to grow hemp so of course people aren't growing it for those uses. But if the laws were changed then people would start growing for those purposes. Mainly the real reason why they would grow is to use the fiber for clothing. Hemp is more durable than cotton and wears longer not to mention the old it gets the softer it gets.


It's just a matter of time until Hemp is a viable crop. Savy investors are already primed and ready for the coming agricultural boom.

www.marketwatch.com...

I'm currently investing in the machinery/industrial infrastructure/storage used in processing hemp.

plainshemp.com...

If you have a little disposable income....nows your chance to still get in on the ground floor.

I'm not going to do the brokerage research for you. No one did it for me.


Things are moving fast! I can't believe all the misinformation being spread on a forum where "deny ignorance" is the mantra.


















edit on 21-1-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: snowspirit
a reply to: and14263

There's use and then there's over-use. Many people find it either relaxing or energizing, depending on the time of day.

Add in the many advantages of hemp.....textiles, oils, hempcrete.


Just like there are casual drinkers and alcoholics. There are aspirin users and there are pill poppers. You don't make something illegal because a few people have issues controlling themselves.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
You could have simply said Rockafella. One word and keep it at that. It encompasses all the rest. a reply to: Krazysh0t



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Just having it and standing still violates federal law. You don't need to take it anywhere. a reply to: intrepid



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Please remove L.S.D from the title connecting it with the dangers of heroin. L.S.D is not dangerous, please do not continue to spread lies.

www.independent.co.uk...< br />
www.cbsnews.com...
edit on 21-1-2015 by shanegm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Nixon is the reason it was lumped in with heroin to begin with..this study/review was done back then and Nixon nixxed the findings and put forward the current absolutly false model.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
On a personal note I quit smoking after nearly forty years without any patches or aids. I just stopped. I didn't get any physical withdrawal symptoms I merely had the desire to smoke, which I just ignored. I didn't get headaches or stomach problems or cold chills or shaking that will happen with real physical addiction so I'm a little leary when they put tobacco in the same class as heroin.


a reply to: buster2010



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: shanegm
Wasn't MK Ultra L.S.D. ??
Maybe you don't think it's dangerous but there are people who got really f'd up and still suffer flashbacks.
edit on 1212015 by AutumnWitch657 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Don't kid yourself about why it's grown. Same with alcohol. It can be used to clean with but that's not why they make Petron tequila.

reply to: buster2010



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Good thing it has already been legalized in CO, otherwise we may still be dealing with the "Reefer Madness".

..And Lysergic Acid Diethylamide used with the right intentions can hold great benefits, IMO.

---

Ironically, the most potentially problematic one of them all - opiates, is the only drug (discussed here), that sells legally nation-wide.
edit on 21-1-2015 by nOraKat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

None of the above are dangerous if clean and used propely... The war on drugs is a war waged on humanity....

purp..



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Oh and the same softening properties can be said of flax used to make linen. The older it gets the softer it gets. However we still want new fashions so no matter it's strength and increasing softness it won't transform itself into new clothing or household goods. Durability be damned it's still going to end up in a landfill.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I don't necessarily think that MJ is the 'savior' that people try to make it out to be, but like a lot of people in this thread, I feel like hemp could be. I mean, hemp can be used for so many things (like one member already stated.) I am all for recreational MJ being a legal thing, though. It's far less dangerous than alcohol, and it's something we'd be able to tax. And the amount of violence on the streets might go down. I dunno. I have a hard time believing that the legalization of MJ throughout the U.S. would be a bad thing.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

m.youtube.com...

Yeah mk ultra must have been a huge success lol

m.youtube.com...

Once again. L.S.D is not dangerous. It was demonized because the popularity of the drug in the 60's and the anti-war movement was gaining traction. Flashbacks, and jumping out of windows all of a sudden were constantly pushed in people's faces and the soccer mom sheep bought it right up.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
No it's not all they mean. They said plain and simple that it was a gateway drug. Proof they lied??? I still only have an occasional drink and I've never tried hard drugs. So says 40 years of research.
a reply to: intrptr


Like I said in my post (because I knew it would attract the better than thou posters)…


This post isn't for those few in control and practicing moderation in all things…



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Crap. The first time you get sooo high… the next time you need a little more to get there. In fact, addiction is about continually chasing that first time… some would call it "recapturing the moment".

But like I said in my post above, people who don't have addictive personalities needn't bother responding. Addiction is about a predilection to substance abuse… its about the person, not the substance.

Addiction is about the need to anesthetize or cover up feeling or trauma. In that regard, anything under the sun can and is abused (including the sun).

Serial killers are addicted to the "rush" of murder. Religious folk to a spiritual "high", success, money, education all are "drugs" in that regard.

No proof? Look around who's "obsessed" and "compulsive" about their money and stuff (all legal addictions). Just try and take a wealthy persons money… look at how the need for it has over stepped all reasonable bounds.

Thats substance abuse. The fallacy that more is better is exactly what "leads to" more and better stuff and money.
edit on 21-1-2015 by intrptr because: additional



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: shanegm

I'm not spreading lies. That's the name of the article. Did you not read the P.S. I put at the bottom of the OP? Though it would be nice if ATS didn't censor that acronym...
edit on 21-1-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join