Drugs!

[lilakuh]

No it was about a contrast between the two not overall. In other words can you function more easily if you have ingested caffine or if you have used heroin?

My question had nothing to do with being able to function on caffiene vs not having any.

The ability to function period WAS my argument - you can function using one but not the other.

In that case, you are responding to a question that no one asked. I don't deny that you function better when you are not under the influence of drugs, compared to the way you function when you are stoned. Obviously you shouldn't be high while driving a car or while at work (and there are already laws on the book regarding that.)

But you are still dodging my question. The previous poster argued that there is no good reason for the use of marijuana, therefore it should be made illegal. What I am asking, following that line of reasoning, what the arguments are for the use of chocolate and coffee.

Whether you can function using one or the other is irrelevant, since I'm not arguing that you should toke on a joint while on the job. I'm only wondering why that poster seems so bent on disallowing me to light up a joint in my own home in order to relax in the evening.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Sweetie I said heroin mostly and also no one can function as clearly after smoking a joint then they could before - the rest is what you have attributed to me that i never even said so i snipped it because its not relevant - at no point did i say anything about overdose what can happen etc.. .

You said heroin use and cannabis use, but I accept that you were speaking more of the effects of heroin. And, I agree, heroin is dangerous and nothing like using caffeine.

I was hoping that people might see education through my post and my linked information. I wasn't specifically responding speaking to you at that point, but I am very sorry for confusing you. I can see how it was a little confusing, and I really regret that my words were not clear.

I've never seen a case where having more information has harmed a discussion. I've always found that having all of the information available helps me make better decisions. I felt it would benefit this particular discussion to give people some more information.

Perhaps you didn't see my question before. I was wondering what you are basing your opinions on, when you say thinks like: "no one can function as clearly after smoking a joint then they could before"?

Only my husband, my sister, and my one (gay) friend are allowed to call me "sweetie". I would ask that you respectfully refrain from such familiar terms in reference to me in the future. Thank you.

 

[Pommer]

... but no it wouldn't bother me one bit if alcohol was illegal.

This brings up a (trivial) but interesting point.
Back in the day when the Volstead Act was passed (Prohibition) they didn't actually make the substance (alcohol) illegal, (in fact there were still several ways one could have licit alcohol for personal use), only the manufacture, sale, transporting of alcohol were illegal.
The reasoning was "how can a legislature make a substance illegal?"
The answer was, "You can't, but then you don't have to...just make all the activities that go with the substance illegal and you'll have de facto made the substance verboten as well."

Fast forward to 1936 when they were wrestling with making marijuana "illegal"...same "problem" they couldn't see how to declare something that grew wild on the plains, that George Washington himself grew, suddenly, illegal.
So what they did was to pass the Marihuana Stamp Act which made growing marijuana illegal if one had not purchased a tax stamp that pre-taxed the crop.
This "helped" in two ways it didn't make the substance per se illegal, (getting by their legislative dilemma) and it gave those people who grew hemp time to switch over to other cash crops so as not to put poor people into even more dire straits.
The feedback from who was trying to get the stamps also provided a way to see who was producing hemp and in what quantities.
Over time the issuance of the stamps stopped altogether, making any grower "illegal" since the authorities knew the grower didn't have the necessary tax-stamp.

That we all know that certain substances are "illegal" is common (background) knowledge but it would have been inconceivable to our predecessors just 75 years ago!

 

[BananaSlug]

Hm... let's compare...

In large amounts, and especially over extended periods of time, caffeine can lead to a condition known as caffeinism.[67][68] Caffeinism usually combines caffeine dependency with a wide range of unpleasant physical and mental conditions including nervousness, irritability, anxiety, tremulousness, muscle twitching (hyperreflexia), insomnia, headaches, respiratory alkalosis, and heart palpitations.[69][70] Furthermore, because caffeine increases the production of stomach acid, high usage over time can lead to peptic ulcers, erosive esophagitis, and gastroesophageal reflux disease.[71]
There are four caffeine-induced psychiatric disorders recognized by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition: caffeine intoxication, caffeine-induced anxiety disorder, caffeine-induced sleep disorder, and caffeine-related disorder not otherwise specified (NOS).

Caffeine intoxication

An acute overdose of caffeine, usually in excess of about 300 milligrams, dependent on body weight and level of caffeine tolerance, can result in a state of central nervous system over-stimulation called caffeine intoxication,[72] colloquially "caffeine jitters". The symptoms of caffeine intoxication are not unlike overdoses of other stimulants. It may include restlessness, nervousness, excitement, insomnia, flushing of the face, increased urination, gastrointestinal disturbance, muscle twitching, a rambling flow of thought and speech, irritability, irregular or rapid heart beat, and psychomotor agitation.[70] In cases of much larger overdoses mania, depression, lapses in judgment, disorientation, disinhibition, delusions, hallucinations and psychosis may occur, and rhabdomyolysis (breakdown of skeletal muscle tissue) can be provoked.[73][74]
In cases of extreme overdose, death can result. The median lethal dose (LD50) given orally, is 192 milligrams per kilogram in rats.[2] The LD50 of caffeine in humans is dependent on weight and individual sensitivity and estimated to be about 150 to 200 milligrams per kilogram of body mass, roughly 80 to 100 cups of coffee for an average adult taken within a limited time frame that is dependent on half-life. Though achieving lethal dose with caffeine would be exceptionally difficult with regular coffee, there have been reported deaths from overdosing on caffeine pills, with serious symptoms of overdose requiring hospitalization occurring from as little as 2 grams of caffeine.[75][76][77][78] Death typically occurs due to ventricular fibrillation brought about by effects of caffeine on the cardiovascular system.
Treatment of severe caffeine intoxication is generally supportive, providing treatment of the immediate symptoms, but if the patient has very high serum levels of caffeine then peritoneal dialysis, hemodialysis, or hemofiltration may be required.

Let's see (all dosages are human except where noted).
Caffeine LD50- 150-200mg/kg, Nicotine LD50- .5-1.0mg/kg,
Alcohol LD50- 10,300mg/kg (rats), THC LD50 (estimate)- 1500lbs smoked in 15 minutes.

 

[PsychMJC]

In that case, you are responding to a question that no one asked. I don't deny that you function better when you are not under the influence of drugs, compared to the way you function when you are stoned. Obviously you shouldn't be high while driving a car or while at work (and there are already laws on the book regarding that.)

But you are still dodging my question. The previous poster argued that there is no good reason for the use of marijuana, therefore it should be made illegal. What I am asking, following that line of reasoning, what the arguments are for the use of chocolate and coffee.

Whether you can function using one or the other is irrelevant, since I'm not arguing that you should toke on a joint while on the job. I'm only wondering why that poster seems so bent on disallowing me to light up a joint in my own home in order to relax in the evening.

It's like playing tennis with a brick wall, believe me.

 

[PsychMJC]

Now, I am in many ways a civil libertarian. But I do not see people having an inalienable right to ingest whatever they want. It isn't that simple.

You are right. Give a bunch of teens guns and somebody will get shot. And? That is probably why a bunch of teens don't get to run around strapped, wouldn't you agree? And just like that, we have the answer. Hurray! Don't let a bunch of teens run around with guns OR marijuana. Tada! It is illegal for a teen to stumble around drunk or have alcohol, it would be illegal for them to stumble around high or have marijuana.

You are telling me, an adult, what I can and cannot ingest in the privacy of my own home. Now, if you wanted to say driving under the influence of drugs should remain illegal, I would agree. If you wanted to set an age limit for the purchase and use of drugs, I would agree. If you wanted to regulate the purity and sale of drugs, I would agree. If you wanted to set boundary laws as to where drugs can be consumed, I would agree. What I can't agree with is YOU, for no good reason, telling ME what I can and cannot do to my own body.

I am not sure when I brought up heroin, so you will have to excuse me if I have nothing to say on the subject.