Getting High Is Just As Good Now As An Atheist

[FievelJ]

I mix dabs of live sugar in my flower then smoke it both up. It usually hits me harder at first.

Who else still likes to get high? (Cannabis).

I hope that this is not too short.

 

[Jarhyn]

I mix dabs of live sugar in my flower then smoke it both up. It usually hits me harder at first.

Who else still likes to get high? (Cannabis).

I hope that this is not too short.

There are some wonderful things to be said about the effectiveness of cannabis in calming the overactive ASD mind, so that things can come through the din, and plans can be planned.

I love me some sugar or wax in an oven vape.

 

[FievelJ]

I mix dabs of live sugar in my flower then smoke it both up. It usually hits me harder at first.

Who else still likes to get high? (Cannabis).

I hope that this is not too short.

There are some wonderful things to be said about the effectiveness of cannabis in calming the overactive ASD mind, so that things can come through the din, and plans can be planned.

I love me some sugar or wax in an oven vape.

Well am high now, and will probably vape some soon.

 

[SIB]

To me, its a drug. Medical benefits are almost commonsense to me. It seems to settle people down.

As far a recreationally, I would seriously consider switching alcohol and herb on the legal list. I mean other than road rage for the impaired driver sitting through the green light, it seems a lot less violent.

 

[Jarhyn]

To me, its a drug. Medical benefits are almost commonsense to me. It seems to settle people down.

As far a recreationally, I would seriously consider switching alcohol and herb on the legal list. I mean other than road rage for the impaired driver sitting through the green light, it seems a lot less violent.

Yeah. Personally, I'm Neuroatypical, a d need to be able to "settle down" "the chorus" on occasion.

Instead of stimulating my ability to listen, as with neurostimulants, turning down the volume works all the same, and often more usefully.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To me, its a drug. Medical benefits are almost commonsense to me. It seems to settle people down.

As far a recreationally, I would seriously consider switching alcohol and herb on the legal list. I mean other than road rage for the impaired driver sitting through the green light, it seems a lot less violent.

It's utterly clear that weed is far safer than alcohol.

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

To me, its a drug. Medical benefits are almost commonsense to me. It seems to settle people down.

As far a recreationally, I would seriously consider switching alcohol and herb on the legal list. I mean other than road rage for the impaired driver sitting through the green light, it seems a lot less violent.

It's utterly clear that weed is far safer than alcohol.

And both are safer than tobacco. And less addictive.

Eldarion Lathria,
former tobacco junkie

 

[bilby]

To me, its a drug. Medical benefits are almost commonsense to me. It seems to settle people down.

As far a recreationally, I would seriously consider switching alcohol and herb on the legal list. I mean other than road rage for the impaired driver sitting through the green light, it seems a lot less violent.

It's utterly clear that weed is far safer than alcohol.

And both are safer than tobacco. And less addictive.

Eldarion Lathria,
former tobacco junkie

That depends on your definition of ‘safer’. I don’t recall the last time I heard about a tobacco smoker beating his family while under the influence of nicotine, or crashing his car into a pedestrian.

Both cause various diseases in regular users, and tobacco is probably worse on that basis, but IMO injuries to bystanders are more concerning than injuries to users.

 

[Jarhyn]

To me, its a drug. Medical benefits are almost commonsense to me. It seems to settle people down.

As far a recreationally, I would seriously consider switching alcohol and herb on the legal list. I mean other than road rage for the impaired driver sitting through the green light, it seems a lot less violent.

It's utterly clear that weed is far safer than alcohol.

And both are safer than tobacco. And less addictive.

Eldarion Lathria,
former tobacco junkie

That depends on your definition of ‘safer’. I don’t recall the last time I heard about a tobacco smoker beating his family while under the influence of nicotine, or crashing his car into a pedestrian.

Both cause various diseases in regular users, and tobacco is probably worse on that basis, but IMO injuries to bystanders are more concerning than injuries to users.

Tobacco does injure bystanders though, albeit in a more distributed rather than lotteried injury.

 

[SIB]

All good points ... "balance". How about processed food.

Smoking regularly, as in 10 or more cigarettes daily vs assuming not abuse, few times a week (or what is prescribed). Or a 1/4 gummy is nothing in the air. One of the more unsettling things I see is a parent smoking a cig in the car with children. That is a data point on human behavior.

I would have look this up but I think the most dangerous thing most of us do to our beloved loved ones is drive them around.

 

[Jarhyn]

All good points ... "balance". How about processed food.

Smoking regularly, as in 10 or more cigarettes daily vs assuming not abuse, few times a week (or what is prescribed). Or a 1/4 gummy is nothing in the air. One of the more unsettling things I see is a parent smoking a cig in the car with children. That is a data point on human behavior.

I would have look this up but I think the most dangerous thing most of us do to our beloved loved ones is drive them around.

Well, there are a lot of other dangerous things we do between point A and point B, but this is the most fraught thing we have to do these days in general, and it's still never been safer.

From falling off horses to being kicked to being robbed on the road, getting places has ALWAYS been abjectly injurious. Short of being in an actual armed conflict as a soldier (and gambling addictions), travel was always the biggest roll of the dice.

 

[southernhybrid]

Pulitzer Prize winning Natalie Anger, who writes about biology, describes marijuana as a way for women who are anorgasmic to obtain orgasm. She mentions that all of her female family members used weed to experience orgasm. As a young woman, I never found that necessary, but as a post menopausal woman, I sometimes refer to it as Viagra for women.

Anger wrote her book, "Woman" in 2000 and she mentions that medical cannabis has never been approved as a way to improve women's sex lives. Hmmmm. Could that have anything to do with our male dominated healthcare system?

Of course we don't really know the negative effects of long term usage of cannabis, as not nearly enough research has been done, due to the stupid US laws that keep it illegal on the federal level. There certainly may be long term effects, especially if one uses from sun up to sun down. I've often predicted that when enough of us baby boomers become really old, there might be a new disease known as THC dementia, sort of like alcoholic dementia. Ironically, a drug that contains THC has been used to treat Alzheimer's but it didn't seem to be very effective. At least not for my former patient. Still, maybe if one has dementia, a little cannabis might help calm down the agitation that so many with AD experience.

I've never driven while under the influence of any recreational drug. I also think it's cruel, and stupid to lock up a person for using a substance in the safety of their home. What a waste of law enforcement, not to mention the cost of incarceration. As some of you mentioned, there are many human habits that have the potential to be harmful, including many branches of organized religion.

But, right now, I thought we were talking about getting high, which at least temporarily takes a little of life's misery away. Perhaps if used in moderation, no harm will come. It doesn't seem to have harmed that old guy, Willy Nelson.

Btw, is it 4:20 yet?

 

[bilby]

All good points ... "balance". How about processed food.

Smoking regularly, as in 10 or more cigarettes daily vs assuming not abuse, few times a week (or what is prescribed). Or a 1/4 gummy is nothing in the air. One of the more unsettling things I see is a parent smoking a cig in the car with children. That is a data point on human behavior.

I would have look this up but I think the most dangerous thing most of us do to our beloved loved ones is drive them around.

The way I see people driving, most shouldn’t have a licence (and I am guessing many don’t, but drive anyway).

IMO, drivers licences should be similarly rare, and similarly hard to obtain, as pilots licences. The idea that almost everyone has one is fucking terrifying; Many, many people have neither the ability nor the temperament to be safe behind the wheel.

I drive a heavy vehicle in urban and suburban areas for about fifty hours a week, and every day I see at least one incident that was only non-fatal due to pure dumb luck.

 

[Jarhyn]

every day I see at least one incident that was only non-fatal due to pure dumb luck

So, either this is evidence of a causal adjacency, a cause of a great torment in seeing people die every day, or perhaps not pure dumb luck but rather good-enough reflexes and reactions and design considerations.

 

[bilby]

every day I see at least one incident that was only non-fatal due to pure dumb luck

So, either this is evidence of a causal adjacency, a cause of a great torment in seeing people die every day, or perhaps not pure dumb luck but rather good-enough reflexes and reactions and design considerations.

One of the major reasons why so many people are so bad at driving is the bizarre and counterfactual belief that good reflexes are a part of good driving.

If you are getting into situations that require reflex responses to get out of, then you are doing it wrong. Very dangerously wrong.

Road and vehicle design is certainly the reason why so many incidents that would have been fatal in the 1950s are non-fatal, (or even near misses with neither damage nor injury of any kind) today.

But we still have far too many near misses, fender-benders, injuries and deaths, which could be completely avoided by requiring people to show more than a brief and cursory competence when obtaining a licence to operate a motor vehicle.

 

[Jarhyn]

every day I see at least one incident that was only non-fatal due to pure dumb luck

So, either this is evidence of a causal adjacency, a cause of a great torment in seeing people die every day, or perhaps not pure dumb luck but rather good-enough reflexes and reactions and design considerations.

One of the major reasons why so many people are so bad at driving is the bizarre and counterfactual belief that good reflexes are a part of good driving.

If you are getting into situations that require reflex responses to get out of, then you are doing it wrong. Very dangerously wrong.

Road and vehicle design is certainly the reason why so many incidents that would have been fatal in the 1950s are non-fatal, (or even near misses with neither damage nor injury of any kind) today.

But we still have far too many near misses, fender-benders, injuries and deaths, which could be completely avoided by requiring people to show more than a brief and cursory competence when obtaining a licence to operate a motor vehicle.

Reflexes, however, very much factor in when things have already gone "outside the lines".

That's my point about that contributive factor.

I agree there are too many near misses and far fewer people should be driving about when they don't have to.

We should have machines that can drive...

But driving is still WAY safer than any other way of getting about quickly with stuff.

(Assuming you have no infrastructure... Which is yanks don't.)

 

[FievelJ]

Pulitzer Prize winning Natalie Anger, who writes about biology, describes marijuana as a way for women who are anorgasmic to obtain orgasm. She mentions that all of her female family members used weed to experience orgasm. As a young woman, I never found that necessary, but as a post menopausal woman, I sometimes refer to it as Viagra for women.

Anger wrote her book, "Woman" in 2000 and she mentions that medical cannabis has never been approved as a way to improve women's sex lives. Hmmmm. Could that have anything to do with our male dominated healthcare system?

Of course we don't really know the negative effects of long term usage of cannabis, as not nearly enough research has been done, due to the stupid US laws that keep it illegal on the federal level. There certainly may be long term effects, especially if one uses from sun up to sun down. I've often predicted that when enough of us baby boomers become really old, there might be a new disease known as THC dementia, sort of like alcoholic dementia. Ironically, a drug that contains THC has been used to treat Alzheimer's but it didn't seem to be very effective. At least not for my former patient. Still, maybe if one has dementia, a little cannabis might help calm down the agitation that so many with AD experience.

I've never driven while under the influence of any recreational drug. I also think it's cruel, and stupid to lock up a person for using a substance in the safety of their home. What a waste of law enforcement, not to mention the cost of incarceration. As some of you mentioned, there are many human habits that have the potential to be harmful, including many branches of organized religion.

But, right now, I thought we were talking about getting high, which at least temporarily takes a little of life's misery away. Perhaps if used in moderation, no harm will come. It doesn't seem to have harmed that old guy, Willy Nelson.

Btw, is it 4:20 yet?

If there's any long term damage to heavy cannabis use we would see it in many people by now.

Cheech and Chong. Snoop Dogg. Seth Rogen, Who smoked in front of Steven Spielberg. Seth MacFarlane. Seth Green. Morgan Freeman. Many people use cannabis without adverse effects. Never have they actually linked a cancer case directly to cannabis, if anything they have found that it helps treat cancer and not causes it. Willie Nelson quit tobacco, after he had a lung collapse a couple times. He replaced his ordinary cigarettes with joints instead, now he doesn't smoke anything. He uses cannabis in other forms, his reason is to give his lungs a break.

The research you speak of has already been done, even without a government's help. They are always finding things cannabis can help treat, and certain forms which help more than others. Raw cannabis shakes helps with liver damage from alcohol. They can make lotions from cannabis to treat certain types of skin cancer. Should one smoke then drive? NO. But they will drive better than someone who has had 6 drinks or more. Some people who smoke and drive will go like half the speed limit. They also often drive more cautiously as they know they are high, and often ask, "how am I driving?"

Cannabis use to be infused into medicine all the time until Harry Anslinger convinced everyone that it was one of the worse drugs in history.

The only way cannabis will kill a person is if a large bale of it falls on someone. Not one time in history has it been directly blamed for anyone's death. Not in using it that is. Mostly skeptics and prohibitionists still say more research is needed, as they are convinced there's long term adverse effects. None have ever been found in 1000s of years. There's actually fossil records of cannabis it has been here that long.
If adverse effects were going to happen we would have found them by now, don't you think? How do we know this? Finding mummies with a stash of weed on them. It has been being used for quite some time if adverse effects were to be found they would have found them by now.

Thanks For Reading.

 

[bilby]

Never have they actually linked a cancer case directly to cannabis, if anything they have found that it helps treat cancer and not causes it

Yeah, nah. It probably has a small carcinogenic effect, (but then so does almost everything). Certainly the routine inhaling of particulate smokes into the lungs is very bad for them, regardless of the source of those particles, so smoking anything (or even just sitting around campfires frequently) is a poor choice for lung health.

It can help with some of the side effects of chemotherapy, but doesn’t directly treat cancers at all - Just ask Bob Marley.

 

[FievelJ]

Never have they actually linked a cancer case directly to cannabis, if anything they have found that it helps treat cancer and not causes it

Yeah, nah. It probably has a small carcinogenic effect, (but then so does almost everything). Certainly the routine inhaling of particulate smokes into the lungs is very bad for them, regardless of the source of those particles, so smoking anything (or even just sitting around campfires frequently) is a poor choice for lung health.

It can help with some of the side effects of chemotherapy, but doesn’t directly treat cancers at all - Just ask Bob Marley.

They did not know about making the lotions for that type of cancer just yet. Bob was only interested in performing and refused the treatment which was available at the time. He also thought his god would help him too. I would have let them cut off my toe and stopped performing until I would be healthy again. Just smoking cannabis isn't going to cure cancer of its type. But if he would have used the right lotions made from cannabis would probably have helped him.

I only ask you do the research, as lung cancer can be treated by smoking cannabis.

Just think about it for a moment, why cure something when one treatment is 1200$ or so. Someone is making a ton of money treating instead of curing cancer. That's what they are so worried about.

Research research research. And try to stay away from .gov websites, they will never have the truth on them.

But Bob probably could have cured himself if he was using cannabis in the right way to treat his condition.
If you have skin cancer of some type, you don't smoke it to treat it.
You use a lotion to treat skin cancer. Bob had a type of skin cancer in his one toe, the lotions would have helped.

Plus look up the statistics of people who have been cured using cannabis.

But if you really believe it does nothing, oh well.

My two cents to that.

 

[Jarhyn]

Never have they actually linked a cancer case directly to cannabis, if anything they have found that it helps treat cancer and not causes it

Yeah, nah. It probably has a small carcinogenic effect, (but then so does almost everything). Certainly the routine inhaling of particulate smokes into the lungs is very bad for them, regardless of the source of those particles, so smoking anything (or even just sitting around campfires frequently) is a poor choice for lung health.

It can help with some of the side effects of chemotherapy, but doesn’t directly treat cancers at all - Just ask Bob Marley.

Assuming the "terpine tar" of cannabis isn't particularly carcinogenic or selectively lethal to carcinogenic things, it's consistency and ability to encapsulate and carry other chemicals away may support the idea that it helps more than it hurts?

I would expect thick, non-carcinogenic fluids condensing and sticking to, and carrying out otherwise intractable bits to be a likely positive effect, even if bits occasionally get carried in with it in suspension.