Would you be in favor of a repeal of smoking bans ....

[noose4]

um, because the method of consumption has no relevant statement about the common nature of both substances? Say, I can take an advil and some oxycontin in pill form... Gee.. I wonder if there are any inherent differences thereof.





jesus fucking christ... the shit you pink lungers latch onto is amazing.

Both are pain killers so if a comparison is being made regarding where they should or should not be consumed it would be a valid one.

actually, one is a stimulant while the other a hallucinogen. I'm glad I'm discussing this with educated parties. Nice save, though.

Seeing as I am not a pharmacist nor a drug addict I do not know the intricacies of both pills but I do know that they are both taken for pain, and who would have thought all those years of doing drugs has given you a bit of knowledge.

 

[noose4]

Answer my question, please.
Immie was able to.

If you are essentially asking if we should allow Hash bars where a consumer can sit down and SMOKE POT in public on par with Amsterdam then yes.

No, I am saying that marijuana smoking should be permitted anywhere that tobacco smoking is permitted. Maybe in more places since marijuana has not been shown as yet to cause all the serious health problems that tobacco smoke does.

I disagree with the more places part, you can get a contact high by breathing marijuana smoke.

 

[Shogun]

Answer my question, please.
Immie was able to.

If you are essentially asking if we should allow Hash bars where a consumer can sit down and SMOKE POT in public on par with Amsterdam then yes.

No, I am saying that marijuana smoking should be permitted anywhere that tobacco smoking is permitted. Maybe in more places since marijuana has not been shown as yet to cause all the serious health problems that tobacco smoke does.

given your draconian opinion about where tobacco can be smoked your insight really isn't a boon to anyone.

and, since we all know how laughable your PROJECTED ESTIMATES are do you really thing anyone cares that you would grant more room for pot using laughably selective assumptions about the effects of SHpot?

gimme a break.

 

[Shogun]

Both are pain killers so if a comparison is being made regarding where they should or should not be consumed it would be a valid one.

actually, one is a stimulant while the other a hallucinogen. I'm glad I'm discussing this with educated parties. Nice save, though.

Seeing as I am not a pharmacist nor a drug addict I do not know the intricacies of both pills but I do know that they are both taken for pain, and who would have thought all those years of doing drugs has given you a bit of knowledge.

It takes a pharmacist or an addict to be familiar with basic information about the very substances being discussed? WOW. I guess that puts your Dare teacher's textbook knowledge in perspective, doesn't it.




jeez.. had I known you people would know less about the subject in which you blather on about than a fetus does Picasso I wouldn't have even bothered.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

YAWN

Yeah you guys are killing me...i may have to unsubscribe this thread.

****Flamesuit on******

 

[Shogun]

If you are essentially asking if we should allow Hash bars where a consumer can sit down and SMOKE POT in public on par with Amsterdam then yes.

No, I am saying that marijuana smoking should be permitted anywhere that tobacco smoking is permitted. Maybe in more places since marijuana has not been shown as yet to cause all the serious health problems that tobacco smoke does.

I disagree with the more places part, you can get a contact high by breathing marijuana smoke.

HOLY SHIT!?!?!?! THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SMOKED SUBSTANCES?>!?!>>!<>!>!>!>!>!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!


FUCK! someone call the President!

 

[Anguille]

um, because the method of consumption has no relevant statement about the common nature of both substances? Say, I can take an advil and some oxycontin in pill form... Gee.. I wonder if there are any inherent differences thereof.





jesus fucking christ... the shit you pink lungers latch onto is amazing.

Both are pain killers so if a comparison is being made regarding where they should or should not be consumed it would be a valid one.

actually, one is a stimulant while the other a hallucinogen. I'm glad I'm discussing this with educated parties. Nice save, though.

Both are considered stimulants and relaxants, marijuana is also considered a hallucinogen. Regardless both marijuana and tobacco are narcotics, only one of which is physically addictive.

"In low concentrations (an average cigarette yields about 1 mg of absorbed nicotine), the substance acts as a stimulant in mammals and is the main factor responsible for the dependence-forming properties of tobacco smoking. According to the American Heart Association, the "nicotine addiction has historically been one of the hardest addictions to break." The pharmacological and behavioral characteristics that determine tobacco addiction are similar to those that determine addiction to drugs such as heroin and cocaine.[5]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine

 

[noose4]

actually, one is a stimulant while the other a hallucinogen. I'm glad I'm discussing this with educated parties. Nice save, though.

Seeing as I am not a pharmacist nor a drug addict I do not know the intricacies of both pills but I do know that they are both taken for pain, and who would have thought all those years of doing drugs has given you a bit of knowledge.

It takes a pharmacist or an addict to be familiar with basic information about the very substances being discussed? WOW. I guess that puts your Dare teacher's textbook knowledge in perspective, doesn't it.




jeez.. had I known you people would know less about the subject in which you blather on about than a fetus does Picasso I wouldn't have even bothered.

The subject here was neither advil or oxycontin somebody just used them as an analogy.

 

[noose4]

No, I am saying that marijuana smoking should be permitted anywhere that tobacco smoking is permitted. Maybe in more places since marijuana has not been shown as yet to cause all the serious health problems that tobacco smoke does.

I disagree with the more places part, you can get a contact high by breathing marijuana smoke.

HOLY SHIT!?!?!?! THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SMOKED SUBSTANCES?>!?!>>!<>!>!>!>!>!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!


FUCK! someone call the President!

And the glaring similarity is when smoked around others it intrudes into somebody else's personal space thus both should not be allowed in public places of business.

 

[Shogun]

Both are pain killers so if a comparison is being made regarding where they should or should not be consumed it would be a valid one.

actually, one is a stimulant while the other a hallucinogen. I'm glad I'm discussing this with educated parties. Nice save, though.

Both are considered stimulants and relaxants, marijuana is also considered a hallucinogen. Regardless both marijuana and tobacco are narcotics, only one of which is physically addictive.

say.. would you might linking a source that states that pot is more of a stimulant than a hallucinogen?


oy..

 

[Anguille]

um, because the method of consumption has no relevant statement about the common nature of both substances? Say, I can take an advil and some oxycontin in pill form... Gee.. I wonder if there are any inherent differences thereof.





jesus fucking christ... the shit you pink lungers latch onto is amazing.

We are talking about how the two substances, tobacco and marijuana, affect the people who must inhale the smoke created by those using those drugs. Did I really need to explain that to you?

I see you have no retort even after calling me out to answer your question. shocker.

Indeed, you still never have to enter a hash bar were pot legal. Yet, ironically, you seem to be ok with the idea of public consumption of one but not the other. DESPITE the world of differences that pertain to both. Am I conveying my shock yet?

AND, your hypocrisy over allowing smoke dependant upon the Odor YOU prefer speaks volumes about your pink lunger standard. seriously.

You have completely misunderstood my stance. I made a point that my preference of the smell of one type of smoke over the other does not negate the right of anyone else who does not like the smell of pot to have to put up with it. Why not argue the points I make instead of inventing stuff I never said?

 

[Walt]

Question for all you numbnuts who are against smoking bans in public areas.

When marijuana finally becomes completely decriminalized as it eventually will, are you going to stand up and shout that marijuana smokers have every right to smoke in public places and that their desire to smoke trumps that of the majority of other people who do not smoke and don't want to have to inhale the smoke?
Are you going to claim that bar and restaurant owners have every right to permit it in their eating and drinking establishments and that health codes and workplace safety regulations don't apply in these places?

Both tobaccos and marijuana contain narcotics though only nicotine, as far as I am aware is physically addictive.
Marijuana first or second hand smoke is not known to cause cancer or heart disease or ear infections in young children whereas tobacco smoke is known to cause those things.
The most common method of ingestion for both is via lit cigarette.
When pot becomes as legal as tobacco are you going to be fine with being smoked everywhere that you believe tobacco smoke should be permitted?

Personally, I like the smell of marijuana and don't mind at all if people smoke it around me. But I don't think it should be allowed in areas where other people have to inhale it. I feel the same about tobacco.

Yes. If they want to ban smoking in public places, such as airports they can. However they should not be able to dictate to business such as bars and resturants. If it is not illegal then it is up to the business. If you think smoking pot does not cause cancer you need to do more research.

NIDA - Research Report Series - Marijuana Abuse

Cancer of the respiratory tract and lungs may also be promoted by marijuana smoke.4 A study comparing 173 cancer patients and 176 healthy individuals produced strong evidence that smoking marijuana increases the likelihood of developing cancer of the head or neck, and that the more marijuana smoked, the greater the increase.17 A statistical analysis of the data suggested that marijuana smoking doubled or tripled the risk of these cancers.

Marijuana has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens.40 In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 percent to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke.41 It also produces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form, levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells.

42 Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs' exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may increase the risk of cancer more than smoking tobacco does.

 

[Shogun]

Seeing as I am not a pharmacist nor a drug addict I do not know the intricacies of both pills but I do know that they are both taken for pain, and who would have thought all those years of doing drugs has given you a bit of knowledge.

It takes a pharmacist or an addict to be familiar with basic information about the very substances being discussed? WOW. I guess that puts your Dare teacher's textbook knowledge in perspective, doesn't it.




jeez.. had I known you people would know less about the subject in which you blather on about than a fetus does Picasso I wouldn't have even bothered.

The subject here was neither advil or oxycontin somebody just used them as an analogy.

oh hey.. way to avoid being laughed at for making one of the dumbest correlations i've ever seen on this forum.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm probably not a "pink lunger" as I lived most of my young life with smokers. My lungs are probably as dark as anyone elses.

And I said it was not a perfect analogy.

Immie

I thought you said in a previous post that you don't believe you have ever suffered any ill effects from having been raised by smokers?

You said your own was not a perfect analogy. He's talking about mine.

I must have missed the analogy of yours he was talking about and I was trying to figure out how my analogy fit his comments, but with him, you just can never know. I probably just scanned over your point and ignored it like you do everyone elses point.

I don't feel I have suffered any ill effects, but I don't expect my lungs are pink either.

Immie

 

[Shogun]

We are talking about how the two substances, tobacco and marijuana, affect the people who must inhale the smoke created by those using those drugs. Did I really need to explain that to you?

I see you have no retort even after calling me out to answer your question. shocker.

Indeed, you still never have to enter a hash bar were pot legal. Yet, ironically, you seem to be ok with the idea of public consumption of one but not the other. DESPITE the world of differences that pertain to both. Am I conveying my shock yet?

AND, your hypocrisy over allowing smoke dependant upon the Odor YOU prefer speaks volumes about your pink lunger standard. seriously.

You have completely misunderstood my stance. I made a point that my preference of the smell of one type of smoke over the other does not negate the right of anyone else who does not like the smell of pot to have to put up with it. Why not argue the points I make instead of inventing stuff I never said?

why not choose to take your fucking ass to a non smoking bar and make this entire debate a moot point?

Oh, we are ALL full of questions, aren't we?

 

[Shogun]

I disagree with the more places part, you can get a contact high by breathing marijuana smoke.

HOLY SHIT!?!?!?! THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SMOKED SUBSTANCES?>!?!>>!<>!>!>!>!>!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!


FUCK! someone call the President!

And the glaring similarity is when smoked around others it intrudes into somebody else's personal space thus both should not be allowed in public places of business.

On the contrary, your space in never invaded if you don't CHOOSE to enter a smokey room that caters to smokers of either. THAT is a fact exponentially more solid than the kind of bullshit fabricated estimates that fill your little pink lunger quiver.

true story.

 

[Walt]

Marijuana if made legal should have regulations regarding where it can be consumed just like tobacco and alcohol.

I agree and on public property, it should be regulated, but IMHO, on private property, it should be up to the property owner.

um.. what kind of dank ass, inebriating tobacco are YOU able to get your hands on? Did you just laughably equate two substances based solely on how they are consumed?


well.. thats the logic of a pink lunger for ya.

I'm probably not a "pink lunger" as I lived most of my young life with smokers. My lungs are probably as dark as anyone elses.

And I said it was not a perfect analogy.

Immie

And if owner of said private property should open it up to business for the general public applicable laws should apply.

Public nudity is against the law in my State as in many others. So since there are public nudity laws. You are saying all strip clubs open to the public should be closed due to a violation of the public nudity laws. Correct?

 

[noose4]

It takes a pharmacist or an addict to be familiar with basic information about the very substances being discussed? WOW. I guess that puts your Dare teacher's textbook knowledge in perspective, doesn't it.




jeez.. had I known you people would know less about the subject in which you blather on about than a fetus does Picasso I wouldn't have even bothered.

The subject here was neither advil or oxycontin somebody just used them as an analogy.

oh hey.. way to avoid being laughed at for making one of the dumbest correlations i've ever seen on this forum.

You are the one who brought advil and oxycontin into the thread, I guess that brief moment of clarity you had has left you and the toll from the years of drug abuse sets in once again.

 

[noose4]

I agree and on public property, it should be regulated, but IMHO, on private property, it should be up to the property owner.



I'm probably not a "pink lunger" as I lived most of my young life with smokers. My lungs are probably as dark as anyone elses.

And I said it was not a perfect analogy.

Immie

And if owner of said private property should open it up to business for the general public applicable laws should apply.

Public nudity is against the law in my State as in many others. So since there are public nudity laws. You are saying all strip clubs open to the public should be closed due to a violation of the public nudity laws. Correct?

Strip clubs have strict rules and regulations regarding them and one can not choose to go nude to Mcdonalds, Walmart, or any other place that falls outside of the rules regarding public nudity.

 

[Immanuel]

If you are essentially asking if we should allow Hash bars where a consumer can sit down and SMOKE POT in public on par with Amsterdam then yes.

No, I am saying that marijuana smoking should be permitted anywhere that tobacco smoking is permitted. Maybe in more places since marijuana has not been shown as yet to cause all the serious health problems that tobacco smoke does.

I disagree with the more places part, you can get a contact high by breathing marijuana smoke.

Which would lead to me being intoxicated... then if I drove even though I had not smoked mj... got pulled over and arrested for DUI, I would be responsible yet the pot smoker would be to blame. I wonder if Anguille would be willing to pay the fines of all non pot smokers that were busted for DUI, just for being around the stuff.

Immie