Information about Cannabis and Hemp including basics, effects, dosage, history, legal status, photos, research, media coverage, and links to other resources.
Marijuana was NOT less potent in the 70s and 80s, by the way.
And I don't have to link to a study in order to state the clear and the obvious.
If you want a credible source for the effects of weed, www.erowid.org
Erowid is legit and ubiased, and if you can't accept what you read there, you can't accept anything.
You're starting to get ridiculous, sertman.
ps you'll notice fairly quickly that it's listed as "Intoxicant; Stimulant; Psychedelic; Depressant," not "Deliriant"
Erowid's no different from any source that I gave you, except that it supports your point of view. So how are my sources propaganda and how is your source credible?
Erowid is legit. It is common knowledge that erowid is legit.
Erowid is unbiased.
Erowid does NOT support our side, by saying that it is clear that you didn't go through and read the information. Erowid does not support any side, and does not condone drug use, it tells it like it is.
.gov sites and sites monitored by the government will support whatever side the government wants you to believe.
Erowid is probably the only truley reliable source that has been brought up in this entire discussion.
I've been through erowid. The problem with erowid is that it has such an unbelievable amount of information that it's very easy to miss the dangerous information unless you have a medical degree. And while I understand that studying the positive effects of drugs is professional suicide, the fact that a lot of it is from anonymous people still shreds a doubt on it's bias and credibility.
All of the information in the main vault is verified. There is information written by various people throughout the site, in the essays and experience reports and such, those are generally reliable, but theoretically could technically be unreliable, which is apparently enough for you to say "NO THATS NOT TRU ITZ BAD"
The main vault is credible, look at the material on there.
I didn't say it didn't stray, it's just... ugh, how can it be so hard to accept that some pot-smokers are actually responsible and that not everything you've been told is true?
That's all you were trying to say a page or so back. Looks like it strayed back to an argument about biased sources again. How odd.
This is less a real argument in my opinion. It seems like it has become a reason to laugh at people.
The truth is, this won't go anywhere, anytime, so it's better off being locked.
This may be true, but my guess would be that none of the staff has been checking this thread. I assume it'd have been locked a few pages back otherwise.
PS lock requests are totally against the rules haha
I didn't say it didn't stray, it's just... ugh, how can it be so hard to accept that some pot-smokers are actually responsible and that not everything you've been told is true?
I didn't say it didn't stray, it's just... ugh, how can it be so hard to accept that some pot-smokers are actually responsible and that not everything you've been told is true?
Well, for one, I will agree that there are responsible pot-smokers just like there are responsible drinkers and ect.
Second, maybe not everything you've told us is true, as well. I wouldn't doubt that because you make it seem like marijuana is from the fountain of youth or something.
Well, for one, I will agree that there are responsible pot-smokers just like there are responsible drinkers and ect.
Exactly, that's my point, and that's exactly what he was saying is absolutely false.
Originally posted by lord_carbo
Second, maybe not everything you've told us is true, as well. I wouldn't doubt that because you make it seem like marijuana is from the fountain of youth or something.
It's very possible that I may have theoretically been wrong at some point, byt for the most part I've given very solid points.
It's also true that I am fascinated with it's effects, so I apologize if sometimes it seems ridiculous.
Comment