Marijuana: Friend or Foe?

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

DFDoom

Definition Supervillain
Feb 15, 2007
4,127
1,878
113
#21
Take the artical for what it is and make your vote based on how you feel about the matter. No need to pick him apart on his writing style. He didn't post it to be critiqued.

...and even if you feel as if you have to say something about it;
Have you ever heard of constructive criticism?
 

Stealth

Join date: May '98
May 8, 2002
7,137
1,177
113
40
#22
As for me, I say foe...

However I do feel that it does work for others in a medical sense.

My uncle found out that he had full blown AIDS in 1989/90 and lived until 1993. Smoking is the only way he could keep food down, and function. Unlike now, then they didn't have the drugs then to expand life expectancy for HIV/AIDS patience.

I believe because of marijuana he was able to live a little more comfortably in his last days.

I don't believe it is a cure all drug.
If you are terminal/in pain/dying, yes.

I think doctors are too quick to sign off on people getting their card.

I have many legit reasons why I could get my card, but I don't.
I can handle physical and emotional pain.

Some can't, so I see how it could be appealing.
(And no, I dont feel Im better because I can.)

Jus' my two cents,
and reasoning for what I believe.
You didn't say a single thing in here about how marijuana is bad. I would think that if you chose "foe", you would say ONE NEGATIVE THING about marijuana, let alone enough negative things to justify total prohibition for every human in the world.
 

DFDoom

Definition Supervillain
Feb 15, 2007
4,127
1,878
113
#24
I did.

I said I believe doctors are too liberal about prescribing.
I believe if it is legalized, there will be more of a DUI issue.

There a lot of reasons why I feel legalization is flawed.

If it is, the reasoning wont be for the people...
It will be about taxes and the government getting paid.

I don't have a judgement about what others want to consume or put in their bodies.

As far as me, I find it to be a foe.
I can only speak for myself and what I've experienced and seen.
 

BASEDVATO

Judo Chop ur Spirit
May 8, 2002
8,623
20,808
113
44
#28
I did.

I said I believe doctors are too liberal about prescribing.
I believe if it is legalized, there will be more of a DUI issue.

There a lot of reasons why I feel legalization is flawed.

If it is, the reasoning wont be for the people...
It will be about taxes and the government getting paid.

I don't have a judgement about what others want to consume or put in their bodies.

As far as me, I find it to be a foe.
I can only speak for myself and what I've experienced and seen.
<negative prop button> click < /negative prop button>
 

DFDoom

Definition Supervillain
Feb 15, 2007
4,127
1,878
113
#29
Then contribute to the conversation and say why I deserve neg. props.


...Or are you too high for a rebuttal? ;)
 
Apr 25, 2002
7,232
170
63
42
www.idealsentertainment.com
#30
Maybe i should have put this clearer, and not compare a piece of Journalism with the writing styles of novelists. Still i found a lot of redundancy and contradictions in the article. For example you say you will not bore us with your view on legalization (right in the beginning), then you say "I would not go so far as to say it is bad for the country......In fact, if people were allowed to smoke weed freely, we might actually be a more laid back country."

"I believe the use of narcotics in Portugal decreased when they were decriminalized." You believe? Journalism is about facts, not what you believe.

I could go on, but like Ecose said, this aint English class, I don't really care that much, and i also doubt you'd take criticism from a German ESL student seriously.
You misunderstood me from the door, my friend. I said I will not tell you my personal views on the LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA! Now, the Portugal statement was a fact, I just did not feel like finding the source, so I stated it as an opinion. But here it is if you want it.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

"I would not go so far as to say it is bad for the country......In fact, if people were allowed to smoke weed freely, we might actually be a more laid back country."

The keyword there is MIGHT. I stated that as a "possibility".

There is no contradiction there. I said I would not talk about my personal views on the LEGALIZATION. I also said I was going to play the Devil's advocate, which I did. I picked a viewpoint, and I spoke from it.
 

dali

Sicc OG
Feb 28, 2006
2,012
429
83
39
#31
^^Less is more, stick to facts, avoid contradictions is about as constructive and simple as it gets. If he doesn't want people to criticize his writing style then he should stick to publishing family newsletters. The guy obviously likes to write, why not help him improve his skills by giving basic criticism and not just telling him "hurr durrrr AWUSOME ARTIKLE SMOKE WEED EVERYDAY". A little polemic here and there might trigger ambition, too.
 
Apr 25, 2002
7,232
170
63
42
www.idealsentertainment.com
#32
^^Less is more, stick to facts, avoid contradictions is about as constructive and simple as it gets. If he doesn't want people to criticize his writing style then he should stick to publishing family newsletters. The guy obviously likes to write, why not help him improve his skills by giving basic criticism and not just telling him "hurr durrrr AWUSOME ARTIKLE SMOKE WEED EVERYDAY". A little polemic here and there might trigger ambition, too.
Read my last post and you'll see there is no contradiction. There are facts in there, as well as the viewpoint from those who favor marijuana decriminalization or legalization. "Playing the Devil's advocate" means picking the unpopular side (unpopular to the majority) and making an argument for it. I did that and I used facts.

Let me start off by saying I do not smoke marijuana (I did at one point), nor will I tell you my personal views on the legalization of marijuana. However, I am going to play the Devil’s advocate today by questioning those who oppose the legalization or decriminalization of the emerald treasure.
If you're not a writer you have no place criticizing writers. You can like it or dislike it all you want, but my track record shows I know what I'm doing when I sit down to write something. This website is not a newspaper and does not claim to represent "the facts" at all times. We do not take on that responsibility for a reason.
 

dali

Sicc OG
Feb 28, 2006
2,012
429
83
39
#34
If you're not a writer you have no place criticizing writers.
See, i don't agree with this. You're basically denying the relevance of all philosophical studies, including Anglistics. I don't have to be a writer to criticize Dickens dullness or Dawkins polemic and lopsidedness. I don't have to be a writer to tell you that Seneca uses a more simplified style in his letters to Lucilius compared to the complex style of Aristoteles in his Metaphysics. I don't have to be a writer to tell you that most of Bukowski's work is pulp fiction rubbish compared to the likes of Celine, Goethe or Mann.
I've written my share of essays and read my share of books and articles. That doesn't make me a writer, but still gives me a good enough basis to criticize literary works. This has nothing to do with personal preferences, either, but having read a good amount of books and articles helps you to see the difference between good and shitty writing.

And what exactly makes you a writer? Have you been published? (aside from some website nobody reads). Writing college papers does NOT make you a writer, my friend. In that case, I'm a writer ,too, which according to your logic, gives me the right to criticize your ass all damn day.

According to your logic you can also shut down the entire Sports forum or Bart, since 99 % of the people there aren't professional sport players or rappers.

Arroganz kommt vor dem Fall.
 
Apr 25, 2002
7,232
170
63
42
www.idealsentertainment.com
#38
See, i don't agree with this. You're basically denying the relevance of all philosophical studies, including Anglistics. I don't have to be a writer to criticize Dickens dullness or Dawkins polemic and lopsidedness. I don't have to be a writer to tell you that Seneca uses a more simplified style in his letters to Lucilius compared to the complex style of Aristoteles in his Metaphysics. I don't have to be a writer to tell you that most of Bukowski's work is pulp fiction rubbish compared to the likes of Celine, Goethe or Mann.
I've written my share of essays and read my share of books and articles. That doesn't make me a writer, but still gives me a good enough basis to criticize literary works. This has nothing to do with personal preferences, either, but having read a good amount of books and articles helps you to see the difference between good and shitty writing.

And what exactly makes you a writer? Have you been published? (aside from some website nobody reads). Writing college papers does NOT make you a writer, my friend. In that case, I'm a writer ,too, which according to your logic, gives me the right to criticize your ass all damn day.

According to your logic you can also shut down the entire Sports forum or Bart, since 99 % of the people there aren't professional sport players or rappers.

Arroganz kommt vor dem Fall.
Das einzige arrogante ist hier Sie.

You don't agree with anything I write, so who cares if you agree with that statement? Doesn't surprise me.

I make money writing, son. I'm a published songwriter and poet, and I'm working on shit for other publications as we speak.

You can criticize writers all you want, but at the end of the day writing requires skill and you have no business telling somebody they have none...unless you are a professional editor and/or publisher. You call Dickens dull, but people enjoy what he wrote and he was an accomplished writer. Same goes for anybody else you want to criticize who has published something.

Sports, same shit. You can criticize somebody all you want, but they are where they are because of talent. You don't get drafted to the NFL because you're "alright".

Rap is a different ball game. Anybody with $5,000 can put a record out.

The fact that you can read doesn't mean you understand writing. Based on your rant about my inability to write, you don't even know the difference between journalism and recreational writing. If I wanted to be a journalist, I'd go work for a newspaper. So if you call my piece journalism, you don't even understand how you should be judging my work.

Reading a good amount of books and articles doesn't mean you know the difference between good writing and shitty writing. All it means is you know what YOU CONSIDER good and shitty writing. I've addressed what you have attacked and you have yet to respond with something intelligent. It's not constructive criticism, it's just criticism with a bit of disrespect based on your personal taste.

Like I said, everybody has an opinion and that's cool. Have your opinion, but leave the tips and criticism to the professionals. If I get rejected because of my writing style, so be it. It hasn't happened yet, in school or otherwise.

And for the record, that website that nobody reads has 4,789 views. I understand that's not a lot at the moment, but we haven't finished putting it together, and we have only done test runs in two places (Facebook and here). The rest is just word of mouth, so we must be doing something right.
 
Mar 13, 2003
5,302
606
113
#39
Im for the legalization of Mary Jane!!!! Minus any negative stipulations and loop holes the government can come up with to fuck shit up!



This is what im giving my wife for Valentines day...
she doesnt like weed. :)