Alcohol or Marijunana. Which is worst when overused?

[CaptainF]

Grinder, huh? Damn it. I guess you can learn something new in this forum.

Place product in center. Twist until finely powdered.

 

[Beaver Cleaver]

Oh, that grinder. Hmm... Never was fully into the accessories besides going into one of those shops to buy new filters or a new bowl. Now I know where to look for and what it looks like.

 

[Ecofarm]

Place product in center. Twist until finely powdered.

What the hell kinda second world crap is that? Civilized people use electric coffee grinders. In Amsterdam, they had a modified cloths dryer.

 

[rhawn]

Grinder? I've always called it a keefer, they have screens in the bottom to collect the crystals, which you pack on top occasionally to increase.. "output". Also people that smoke blunts are combining tobacco and marijuana, it helps it burn slower and gives you a better taste, especially with low quality product.

 

[silver 2039]

Place product in center. Twist until finely powdered.

I'm going to need to get me one of those.

 

[Beaver Cleaver]

Phillys' Blunt comes to my mind.

Burn real slow and the smoke is thick.

 

[kill fire]

Alcohol is worse. It makes you drunk which can not only kill you, but can also cause you to kill others.

 

[OttoManD]

yar, I have a grinder. You're on the West Coast as well though, you know just how sticky that icky can be. Sometimes the tobacco is necessary to prevent total joint failure.

 

[holy king]

grinder or not, mixing with tobacco makes it burn slower. it's common for bong smoking too...

 

[BasketCase]

Basketcase

Could I ask a question?

If it were politically possible, would you advocate that Nicotine and Alcohol be banned alongside cannabis? And similiar methods used to supress there use?

Yay, somebody with a worthwhile question.

Nicotine? Not sure. It's not really the nicotine that's a problem so much as the fact that it's usually smoked. If people used a patch to get a nicotine buzz instead of smoking, I'd be all dandy with it because non-smokers wouldn't be getting exposed to second-hand smoke and also because people who are buzzed on nicotine generally don't go driving their cars on the sidewalk.

Alcohol? Probably. Bad stuff. Though one alcohol policy I would definitely keep is public education. Those "don't drink and drive campaigns" you see all the time? Those work.


But this is all hypothetical. Smoking and alcohol are socially "in" and that's just the way it's gonna be.

 

[Ecofarm]

Nicotine? Not sure. It's not really the nicotine that's a problem so much as the fact that it's usually smoked.

Regarding cancer, etc... Same with THC.

There are no overdoses. That one case of speculation you bring is crap. If it was possible to overdose, (outside of scientific evidence proving it impossible) I know people who would have.

 

[BasketCase]

I didn't post a single case of speculative THC overdose.

I posted two.

Anyway, I re-iterate: overdose on tobacco is unheard of in the United States--even though tobacco is used two hundred times as much as weed is in the U.S.

 

[holy king]

i've been on the marijuana needle for 2 and a half years now. guys, it really isnt fun and destroys your life. when i wake up in the morning everything i can think of is the next shot of marijuana. i lost my job due to this vile addiction. i then started to deal with marijuana for income. but i'm failing because i need so much marijuana shots a day at the moment that i use it all up myself. i cant even afford new syringes anymore and have to use the used ones....

update:

my best friend just died of marijuana overdose. this new kind of weed we got in yesterday finally is the devil's himself. he couldnt control it.
o my god, i've lost too many people to marijuana. i cant go on. and i need a new marijuana shot. right now. i'm left with desparation and nothing else...

 

[kaos429]

Yay, somebody with a worthwhile question.

Nicotine? Not sure. It's not really the nicotine that's a problem so much as the fact that it's usually smoked. If people used a patch to get a nicotine buzz instead of smoking, I'd be all dandy with it because non-smokers wouldn't be getting exposed to second-hand smoke and also because people who are buzzed on nicotine generally don't go driving their cars on the sidewalk.

So is your issue with MJ about the drug or about the people who do the drug? You seem to attack both angles with little substance. As an observer, I tend to think your issue is with the user, which is the aspect you are completely out of touch with. Such as the insuation you bring out in the last line of this paragraph.

Alcohol? Probably. Bad stuff. Though one alcohol policy I would definitely keep is public education. Those "don't drink and drive campaigns" you see all the time? Those work.


But this is all hypothetical. Smoking and alcohol are socially "in" and that's just the way it's gonna be.

MJ is more 'socially in' than you think.

 

[BasketCase]

So is your issue with MJ about the drug or about the people who do the drug?

Yes. (I'll overlook your remark about alleged lack of substance--I've got 37 thread pages of substance, which is probably way too much for you to read and digest in a single sitting.....or a single week)

Most people go looking for ONE thing that's wrong with whatever it is I complain about. But that's not enough with this particular thing. There are several problems with marijuana, in combination. Many things in life are addictive, can mess up a person's brain, can kill the user, and can kill other people besides the user.

Marijuana is all four of those things. So is alcohol. Tobacco is only three of them--when smoked. Chewing tobacco? That's much less of a problem. Your risk of cancer and other health problems is a good deal lower if you chew it instead of smoking it. Plus, if you chew instead of smoking, you don't belch second-hand smoke at anybody, and cease being a danger to other people.


You're perfectly welcome to Red Man yourself to death, so long as you don't pose a threat to me while chewing--and as long as some hypothetical socialized medical program doesn't force me to pay your medical bills when you end up in the hospital. Drag racing? Do it on a fenced-off course and I'm dandy with it--but if you start smoking tires on public streets, there's a problem. Base jumping? Fine by me. So long as you don't land on me when your chute fails and you make a giant crater in the sidewalk.

Get the JPG?

 

[OttoManD]

From the NY Times this morning:

An analysis of autopsies in 2007 released this week by the Florida Medical Examiners Commission found that the rate of deaths caused by prescription drugs was three times the rate of deaths caused by all illicit drugs combined.

Drugs with benzodiazepine, mainly depressants like Valium and Xanax, led to 743 deaths. Alcohol was the most commonly occurring drug, appearing in the bodies of 4,179 of the dead and judged the cause of death of 466 — fewer than cocaine (843) but more than methamphetamine (25) and marijuana (0).

 

[lovett]

Yay, somebody with a worthwhile question.

Nicotine? Not sure. It's not really the nicotine that's a problem so much as the fact that it's usually smoked. If people used a patch to get a nicotine buzz instead of smoking, I'd be all dandy with it because non-smokers wouldn't be getting exposed to second-hand smoke and also because people who are buzzed on nicotine generally don't go driving their cars on the sidewalk.

Alcohol? Probably. Bad stuff. Though one alcohol policy I would definitely keep is public education. Those "don't drink and drive campaigns" you see all the time? Those work.

Okay. Would I then be correct in surmising that your against drugs which may cause you* harm, through no fault of your own? I.e, your against smoking because second hand smoke can cause cancer, but your fine with people consuming the drug itself. Therefore, your against alcohol and cannabis because they cause intoxication. The assumption being that an intoxicated person is more likely to crash into you on the road or attack you elsewhere.

I so, then there are two points that must be considered. The first is whether this is a practical way of increasing your safety and wellbeing. That question has quite a complex answer, which I don't want to get into right now.

The second question has hopefully a more simple answer: Why should your welfare trump the welfare of a wannabe drug-taker? What exactly makes your rights more important then somebody elses freedom of choice? Given that people take drugs because they enjoy them, and your safety is already protected by a host of core laws, why is a marginal increase in your welfare worth a significant restriction of freedom (and debateably quality of life) on behalf of others?

*In this description, 'you' can be taken to refer to any 'innocent'. Any teetotaler who does not partake of the drug in question.

 

[BasketCase]

Okay. Would I then be correct in surmising that your against drugs which may cause you* harm, through no fault of your own?

That's only one facet of it--you left out a whole lot.

First and foremost, I am against drugs that are addictive AND that cause harm to people besides the user. Sex is addictive (duh) and cars can cause harm to people besides the user. Either of these, by itself, is not enough. Further, I dislike anything that messes up the human brain because the brain is the only thing that makes humans special (aside from having a larger schlong, as a percentage of body weight, than any other primate on Earth). It won't take a lot of searching to find mundane things that can mess up the human brain--again, this factor alone is not enough.

But marijuana is all three at once. It messes up the brain, is addictive, and kills people besides the user. All at the same time.

I know, I know--you're looking for ONE simple rule that defines the whole issue. Tough luck. There isn't one.

The second question has hopefully a more simple answer: Why should your welfare trump the welfare of a wannabe drug-taker? What exactly makes your rights more important then somebody elses freedom of choice? Given that people take drugs because they enjoy them, and your safety is already protected by a host of core laws, why is a marginal increase in your welfare worth a significant restriction of freedom (and debateably quality of life) on behalf of others?

A significant increase in my welfare (and the welfare of the vast majority of people who are not hooked on weed) is worth a marginal restriction on the freedom of a small number of complete morons.

My right to drive 56 miles an hour does not trump the right of a pedestrian not to get killed by belligerent drivers.

 

[Elta]

Dear BC,

In your life time Marijuana will be legalized. There is nothing you can do about it.

Your friend Elta.

 

[BasketCase]

Nope. Not going to happen.

Your person who does not like you and will thankfully never meet you, BasketCase.

P.S.: Everybody in the United States knew Bush was not getting re-elected in 2004. Every one of those morons was wrong. Keep that in mind.

P.S.S.: I'm older than you might suspect. By the time marijuana is legalized, if it ever is, I will be dead and beyond your reach.