|
Post by ♪Mr.Obv♫ on Oct 9, 2007 17:09:14 GMT -8
um... nobut yea... other than that... you know maybe... you shouldn't care quite so much ignore your friend's view, because if he doesn't want any it means there's more on this good earth for you Haha true dat. But I still disagree with your opposition to my previous statement which disagrees with someone's opinion (Huh?) that marijuana is not a drug.
|
|
|
Post by ♪Mr.Obv♫ on Oct 9, 2007 17:09:43 GMT -8
um... nobut yea... other than that... you know maybe... you shouldn't care quite so much ignore your friend's view, because if he doesn't want any it means there's more on this good earth for you
Haha true dat. But I still disagree with your opposition to my previous statement which disagrees with someone's opinion (Huh?) that marijuana is not a drug.
|
|
|
Post by rabidgecko on Oct 9, 2007 20:47:24 GMT -8
excuse me? cocaine? opium? and technically a drug, aspirin's roots come from willow bark as discovered by Hippocrates.
game over.
|
|
|
Post by Prone on Oct 9, 2007 21:47:58 GMT -8
Anything that you consume, and can't quit when you seriously (added the word "seriously", for emphasis on what real drugs are) want to, is a drug. This whole situation brings me to the time when doctors prescribed cigarettes, because they figured it "cleared the lungs", so it would basically heal you. How much more stupid can they really get?
I mean, come on.
|
|
|
Post by rabidgecko on Oct 10, 2007 14:23:05 GMT -8
actually prone, you are simply talking about a substance that can create an addiction. that is not the definition of a drug. people can become addicted to fast food, does that make fast food a drug? no.
|
|
PhoenixFlare500
Diamond Membership
I like chocolate[ss:LostPeon's Gray][ss:LostPeon's Gray]
Posts: 896
|
Post by PhoenixFlare500 on Oct 10, 2007 15:26:49 GMT -8
Haha yeah rabid's right prone. I believe the definition of a drug is anything that enters your body that has a physiological effect on you, that isn't "normal" (i.e. You don't need it to live).
|
|
dxlightning
Platinum Membership
[ss:LostPeon's Gray][ss:LostPeon's Gray]
Posts: 1,246
|
Post by dxlightning on Oct 10, 2007 23:18:13 GMT -8
It depends on whether you recognize addiction as a disease or whether you believe it's just a sign of a weak will to quit. By the way prone, that whole shtick with the doctors prescribing cigarettes has nothing to do with your argument; their methods were before controlled experiments involving the harmful substances in cigarettes. It's like saying the doctors in colonial times were stupid to use leeches; they were simply doing what they believed right, since no method of identifying and curing illnesses had been extensively created.
That being said, the word drug has two connotations; one positive, one negative.
A positive drug is one that is used to diagnose, treat, or prevent a disease or as a component of a medication.
A negative drug is one that affects the central nervous system to cause disorientation, changes in behavior or addiction.
A positive drug may be a negative drug, and vice versa.
Fact: It is virtually impossible to overdose on Marijuana. I say virtually because I'm sure somehow someone somewhere will find a way to concentrate it to the point that it will kill a human.
Fact: Legislation involving marijuana legalization doesn't deal with "smoke a joint and this'll feel better...," it deals with pills, which would act similarly to a very powerful Aspirin, or Vicodin. They're not trying to legalize it for shits and giggles, so that people may get high.
Fact: Studies have shown that illegal substances lose their enticement when legalized. After prohibition ended in the United States, the amount of alcohol consumed decreased, and I'm sure some of the users on this board can attest that after turning 21, getting alcohol just doesn't seem as important as it once did. While yes, some people would abuse the law, it's just as likely the amount of marijuana users will decrease.
|
|
|
Post by tyrantisius on Oct 11, 2007 19:58:27 GMT -8
i love how popular this thread is, and how old it is as well.
as well, off the top of my head;
Drug: Any substance when, introduced to the body, has an effect on the way your body works.
That's it.
|
|
PhoenixFlare500
Diamond Membership
I like chocolate[ss:LostPeon's Gray][ss:LostPeon's Gray]
Posts: 896
|
Post by PhoenixFlare500 on Oct 11, 2007 20:01:24 GMT -8
See, I was thinking that's the generic definition, but food changes your body when it enters it (even before actually, what with the whole enzymatic action and stuff like that).
|
|
|
Post by tyrantisius on Oct 11, 2007 20:12:09 GMT -8
No, the whole process of digesting food is a bodily process. Everything the body does after the food enters it is supposed to happen. It doesn't change how your body works.
|
|
|
Post by rabidgecko on Oct 11, 2007 20:57:54 GMT -8
but what about foods then that are carcinogenic? would they not also fall under the category of drugs according to your definition?
i understand what you're saying though, and i agree.
|
|
|
Post by tyrantisius on Oct 14, 2007 19:10:41 GMT -8
To be honest, I don't know what carcinogenic is. But carcinogen sounds like a drug to me. If so, then it's the carcinogen IN the food that causes the chance, not the food.
I could be wrong, since I haven't bothered to take the time to find out what it means.
|
|
|
Post by grayfox7 on Oct 14, 2007 19:26:29 GMT -8
Carcinogen's a substance that causes cancer.
|
|
|
Post by tyrantisius on Oct 14, 2007 19:29:16 GMT -8
I knew it had SOMETHING to do with cancer...everything does nowadays.
So there you have it, carcinogen (a drug) causes the change, not the actual food.
|
|