Nuclear Power Exaggerated

  • 4288 Replies
  • 734475 Views
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #540 on: January 11, 2012, 10:19:10 PM »
If nuclear bombs do not exist, all the Nuclear Power stations in the world is fake too?

17N doesn't believe that nuclear fission is fake, he just doesn't think it can create a single large bomb. Since heating water and blowing up cities take quite a different amount of energy, attacking his argument from this angle won't work.

Just for the sake of argument.

If nuclear fission does exist and the technology to harvest exists, what would stop us from making a bomb?

If there is one thing I believe, is the human capability of doing harm to others.

There simply isn't enough energy created by fission to create a bomb.

Einstein would disagree with this sentence.
Just saying.

His relativity never meant that mass could ever be converted straight into energy. The only energy released is the energy bonding the nucleus together. Which does not generate enough for a weapon.

Yes it does o.0
Nope.

Can you prove it doesn't?

You can check it here a few details about nuclear fission http://chemcases.com/nuclear/nc-09.html

Scientists know there is a 10% conversion rate of energy, they know how much mass you need of uranium. I mean, they know everything.

If you say it is false you have to be able to prove it, or you are just assuming is false by your own bias.


*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #541 on: January 11, 2012, 10:38:12 PM »
If nuclear bombs do not exist, all the Nuclear Power stations in the world is fake too?

17N doesn't believe that nuclear fission is fake, he just doesn't think it can create a single large bomb. Since heating water and blowing up cities take quite a different amount of energy, attacking his argument from this angle won't work.

Just for the sake of argument.

If nuclear fission does exist and the technology to harvest exists, what would stop us from making a bomb?

If there is one thing I believe, is the human capability of doing harm to others.

There simply isn't enough energy created by fission to create a bomb.

Einstein would disagree with this sentence.
Just saying.

His relativity never meant that mass could ever be converted straight into energy. The only energy released is the energy bonding the nucleus together. Which does not generate enough for a weapon.

Yes it does o.0
Nope.

Can you prove it doesn't?

You can check it here a few details about nuclear fission http://chemcases.com/nuclear/nc-09.html

Scientists know there is a 10% conversion rate of energy, they know how much mass you need of uranium. I mean, they know everything.

If you say it is false you have to be able to prove it, or you are just assuming is false by your own bias.

Nuclear weapons are a conspiracy, the scope and span of which is unknown.

Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #542 on: January 11, 2012, 10:48:37 PM »
ha
The conspiracy card =)

*

Vindictus

  • 5455
  • insightful personal text
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #543 on: January 12, 2012, 12:28:36 AM »
Nuclear weapons are a conspiracy, the scope and span of which is unknown.

The upper forums called, they urgently need more DA's.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #544 on: January 12, 2012, 07:14:13 AM »
Nuclear weapons are a conspiracy, the scope and span of which is unknown.

The upper forums called, they urgently need more DA's.

Devil's advocates or dumbasses? I can do both.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #545 on: January 12, 2012, 12:14:35 PM »
Nuclear weapons are a conspiracy, the scope and span of which is unknown.

The upper forums called, they urgently need more DA's.

Devil's advocates or dumbasses? I can do both.

Devil's advocate. We've already met the dumbass quota for the year.

*

Lorddave

  • 18127
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #546 on: January 12, 2012, 02:03:24 PM »
Nuclear weapons are a conspiracy, the scope and span of which is unknown.

The upper forums called, they urgently need more DA's.

Devil's advocates or dumbasses? I can do both.

Devil's advocate. We've already met the dumbass quota for the year.
You mean 2013?
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #547 on: January 12, 2012, 02:16:35 PM »
Nuclear weapons are a conspiracy, the scope and span of which is unknown.

The upper forums called, they urgently need more DA's.

Devil's advocates or dumbasses? I can do both.

Devil's advocate. We've already met the dumbass quota for the year.
You mean 2013?

It was doubled this year to account for low productivity after December 21st.

*

Lorddave

  • 18127
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #548 on: January 12, 2012, 02:20:39 PM »
Nuclear weapons are a conspiracy, the scope and span of which is unknown.

The upper forums called, they urgently need more DA's.

Devil's advocates or dumbasses? I can do both.

Devil's advocate. We've already met the dumbass quota for the year.
You mean 2013?

It was doubled this year to account for low productivity after December 21st.
Ahhh.
Well we'll if the world ends this year, I guess all the surplus will go to waste.
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #549 on: February 07, 2012, 12:48:21 AM »
The idea that nuclear weapons do not exist is kind of offensive to all the poor Japanese that died in those two explosions. . .

?

Wakka Wakka

  • 1525
  • Beat The Hell Outta Spheres!
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #550 on: February 07, 2012, 05:27:37 AM »
The idea that nuclear weapons do not exist is kind of offensive to all the poor Japanese that died in those two explosions. . .
Why? They will be dead regardless.
Normally when I'm not sure I just cop a feel.

*

iWitness

  • 1173
  • If the earth is round then what is your problem?
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #551 on: February 07, 2012, 08:43:30 AM »
So if a child is killed by getting pushed off a cliff and people tell you that he was mauled by goats... is it disrespectful to the child to research the situation and allude to the fact he might have been pushed off a cliff when the evidence suggests that?

I don't think so. No one is saying the Japanese did not die or weren't murdered. They are claiming that it was not done by nuclear weapons. Just as Holocaust revisionists aren't denying people being murdered in WWII they are simply denying the official story which is not disrespect at all. In fact, it is an honor that people care enough to find out the truth about past atrocities.

What's disrespectful in my opinion is all the people that could give a shit less about the terror that we as a people are experiencing throughout the world and the degeneration of our morals, values and way of life. What's despicable is everyone that mindlessly chases money, material wealth and not think at all about the future of our world.

We have to know where we came from to get where we are going.
Disclaimer: I am confused. Everything I say is speculative and not admissible in a court of law; however, I am neither insane nor a threat to myself or others. I am simply curious about everything in life and enjoy talking about crazy shit. Oh, & btw I like turtles.

?

Wakka Wakka

  • 1525
  • Beat The Hell Outta Spheres!
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #552 on: February 07, 2012, 10:31:18 AM »
So saying they were killed by conventional bombs instead of atomic bombs is offensive?
Normally when I'm not sure I just cop a feel.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #553 on: February 07, 2012, 10:52:35 AM »
So saying they were killed by conventional bombs instead of atomic bombs is offensive?

iWitness was agreeing with you (Perhaps you didn't read his entire post?), unless you were just compiling this with your original post. In that case you should have simply edited it.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #554 on: February 07, 2012, 11:09:03 AM »
So saying they were killed by conventional bombs instead of atomic bombs is offensive?

Lying about the way that someone was killed is in fact disrespectful.  Not to mention you seem to be forgetting that those who died were not the only victims.  Cancer, dis-figuration, and the fact that we sent doctors to observe and not help are all things that we NEED to remember, because if we forget them it is the same as implying they are insignificant.  The trauma and the horror witnessed by those in the region is not equal to that of conventional bombing, and suggesting it is is in my mind disrespectful.

*

iWitness

  • 1173
  • If the earth is round then what is your problem?
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #555 on: February 07, 2012, 12:06:29 PM »
So you believe Lying is Disrespectful? Me too. At least we can agree on something  :P
Disclaimer: I am confused. Everything I say is speculative and not admissible in a court of law; however, I am neither insane nor a threat to myself or others. I am simply curious about everything in life and enjoy talking about crazy shit. Oh, & btw I like turtles.

*

Death-T

  • 504
  • Conspiracy theories are my bread and butter.
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #556 on: February 07, 2012, 08:02:16 PM »
Has anyone come up with a response to my laid out explanation of why 'nuclear weapons being fake' is in fact politically impossible?
" Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. " - Albert Einstein

" We are imperfect.  We cannot expect perfect government. "  ~William Howard Taft

*

iWitness

  • 1173
  • If the earth is round then what is your problem?
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #557 on: February 07, 2012, 09:05:04 PM »
Has anyone come up with a response to my laid out explanation of why 'nuclear weapons being fake' is in fact politically impossible?

I read your post and you make some good points, but have you ever heard of the idea of Zionism and how it played a role in the Bolshevik revolution which overthrew the Romanov Christian monarchy to establish Communism in Russia? It's a popular idea out there whether or not it is true.

Also, To say that Conspiracies do not exist is simply ignorant and none of the World leaders seem afraid of a Nuclear Armageddon. They appear to be starting conflicts left and right begging the world to riot and kill each other. War is the only time where you can bomb cities and destroy civilizations and maybe get away with it. If the world is in total chaos then you could easily Ooops! Fire a rocket at a target or drop 100's of M-69 Clusterbombs whatever your thing is I don't know.

I am no anti-semite or Jew hater like that even means anything. Jewish people talk about killing Muslims and Christians all the time. All I am doing is talking about events. I think we are all brothers and sisters and creatures with purpose. No man-made Temple could ever be more holy than Creation.

A little off topic, but I'll try to tie it all together. The 3rd temple is a Spiritual temple that Jesus led ALL of Man to when he Died on the Cross. It is symbolic of the Curtain tearing in the temple after he died.

Ephesians 2:14

"For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;"

The first Christians were Jews who recognized Jesus as the Prophesied Messiah. The reason that John had Revelations is because he knew there were some who rejected Christ and ultimately Truth.

Revelations 3:9

I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 09:35:10 PM by iWitness »
Disclaimer: I am confused. Everything I say is speculative and not admissible in a court of law; however, I am neither insane nor a threat to myself or others. I am simply curious about everything in life and enjoy talking about crazy shit. Oh, & btw I like turtles.

*

Death-T

  • 504
  • Conspiracy theories are my bread and butter.
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #558 on: February 08, 2012, 06:37:26 AM »
I read your post and you make some good points, but have you ever heard of the idea of Zionism and how it played a role in the Bolshevik revolution which overthrew the Romanov Christian monarchy to establish Communism in Russia? It's a popular idea out there whether or not it is true.

Yes, but that's not related to what I'm talking about. I could hardly care less about supposed Zionist plots. Especially when the results didn't favor them at all.

Also, To say that Conspiracies do not exist is simply ignorant and none of the World leaders seem afraid of a Nuclear Armageddon. They appear to be starting conflicts left and right begging the world to riot and kill each other. War is the only time where you can bomb cities and destroy civilizations and maybe get away with it. If the world is in total chaos then you could easily Ooops! Fire a rocket at a target or drop 100's of M-69 Clusterbombs whatever your thing is I don't know.

Prove it. I say they are afraid due to them making a big deal about radical regimes acquiring nuclear weapons and the intensive efforts made to prevent, prepare for, and survive the use of nuclear weaponry.

The fact there are widespread conflicts has nothing to due with whether or not the nonexistence of nuclear weapons is politically impossible. We have a long history of where the supposed first possessors of nuclear weaponry have had to gone to extreme lengths to control their spread, set up defensive measures against them and then later worry about rouge states getting them. Why continue the charade when it will only cause further harm to the instigators?

Indeed, if the Russians knew it was fake (thanks to them being in a position to know), why did they not expose us? They felt the need to join a conspiracy that would cost them billions of dollars to be apart of, just for the hell of it?
" Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. " - Albert Einstein

" We are imperfect.  We cannot expect perfect government. "  ~William Howard Taft

*

Lorddave

  • 18127
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #559 on: February 08, 2012, 08:31:25 AM »
If its a lie to keep Iran down, why is Iran not dismissing the existence of nuclear weapons? Why did North Korea not dismiss it?

You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #560 on: February 08, 2012, 08:43:32 AM »
If its a lie to keep Iran down, why is Iran not dismissing the existence of nuclear weapons? Why did North Korea not dismiss it?

You really think a country would try the politcal move of "we tried to research nuclear weapons but its turns out they're fake"?

*

Lorddave

  • 18127
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #561 on: February 08, 2012, 09:01:38 AM »
If its a lie to keep Iran down, why is Iran not dismissing the existence of nuclear weapons? Why did North Korea not dismiss it?

Fidel Castro who does believe in the existence of nuclear weapons asserted that his sovereign country has every right that the US does to posess such alleged weapons.

Iran and North Korea do deny the existence of nuclear weapons in their own countries. 

I do not presently recall either of these verbally accepting the existence of nuclear weapons in the arsenal of the United States.  In the event that the leaders of Iran or North Korea do believe in such weapons, then a mistake in their own education (as is the case with Castro in spite of the correctness of his defence of sovereignty) might explain this.

However, a better explanation is the fact that the leaders of the Iran and North Korea lack of opportunity to conduct in depth and unobstructed investigations of US arsenals of alleged nuclear weapons.
Why would they need to examine the US arsenal? Clearly you know they don't exist without having to have examined it so why not them?

Also the KNCA back in 2009 said this:
"We have successfully conducted another nuclear test on 25 May as part of the republic's measures to strengthen its nuclear deterrent."

So clearly they have proven nuclear weapons exist by actually testing one.
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Death-T

  • 504
  • Conspiracy theories are my bread and butter.
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #562 on: February 08, 2012, 09:07:28 AM »
The Russians use this charade for the same reason as american interventionists.  The FSB/KGB uses this lie to exagerrate the american threat in order to legitimize actions which would otherwise be politically impossible.  The Russians have continuously systematically imitated the imperial tactics of west european states since the time of Tsar Peter over 300 years ago.

So wait..... the sole purpose for the Soviets to continue the charade which would have costed them billions and deny them a critical blow against America's supposed might.... it to support political action in a total authoritative state?

How does this make any sort of sense? Indeed, if they had revealed the charade:

- They would have delivered a critical political blow against the Western Powers in general.
- Not waste billions on a fake program.
- Not help escalate an arms race that essentially dissolved the Soviet Union
- Etc.

There is no sense behind them choosing to abide by the conspiracy based on simply having more political weight.... when they were an authoritative regime with control over all of Eastern Europe. 


Iran and North Korea do deny the existence of nuclear weapons in their own countries. 

Source? And not just listing a book like you are prone to do - I want actual quotes with several sources in support. Not just a single statement by a rouge politician.
" Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. " - Albert Einstein

" We are imperfect.  We cannot expect perfect government. "  ~William Howard Taft

*

iWitness

  • 1173
  • If the earth is round then what is your problem?
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #563 on: February 08, 2012, 10:44:02 AM »
If everyone knew the world was flat, nukes were fake and we are the center of our known universe.... Then what is there to be afraid of? Why would we give so much power to the governments that do not care about us.

They use fear, manipulation, deceit, control of knowledge and media and MURDER to expand their vast empire. Is this not evident? Why would anyone need to be forced to do what is right? The very fact that Marijuana is illegal should prove that things are not balanced in our society. Marijuana is a God-given herb with medicinal use as well as many other uses. For anyone to tell you that you cannot use an herb on this earth is a liar.

They did a variety of tests with Marijuana and I'm sure they found that it has a positive effect on the mind and body. I am guessing that this did not fit well in their plan for global enslavement so they started a smear campaign against it. It grows in nearly every environment and quite fast too. You can make rope, paper, food, oils, clothing, etc. Why is it illegal? Because they cannot control it so they must control it.

It's quite obvious we are dealing with psychopathic control freaks that will go through any length for power. It is the extreme end of the human condition. And it is very possible that Iran is in on the conspiracy too. Things are so departmentalized around the world it doesn't take many to be in on the conspiracy for it to remain afloat.

A lot of people mention how it is possible for so many to be in on it without leaking? Well things leak all the time and whistleblowers come forward, but until the Mass Media says "Nukes do not exist" or "The Earth is Flat" society will not accept it. I guarantee if the news said it was a hoax it would trend on Twitter instantly.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2012, 10:47:38 AM by iWitness »
Disclaimer: I am confused. Everything I say is speculative and not admissible in a court of law; however, I am neither insane nor a threat to myself or others. I am simply curious about everything in life and enjoy talking about crazy shit. Oh, & btw I like turtles.

*

Lorddave

  • 18127
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #564 on: February 08, 2012, 10:54:41 AM »
If everyone knew the world was flat, nukes were fake and we are the center of our known universe.... Then what is there to be afraid of? Why would we give so much power to the governments that do not care about us.

They use fear, manipulation, deceit, control of knowledge and media and MURDER to expand their vast empire. Is this not evident? Why would anyone need to be forced to do what is right? The very fact that Marijuana is illegal should prove that things are not balanced in our society. Marijuana is a God-given herb with medicinal use as well as many other uses. For anyone to tell you that you cannot use an herb on this earth is a liar.

They did a variety of tests with Marijuana and I'm sure they found that it has a positive effect on the mind and body. I am guessing that this did not fit well in their plan for global enslavement so they started a smear campaign against it. It grows in nearly every environment and quite fast too. You can make rope, paper, food, oils, clothing, etc. Why is it illegal? Because they cannot control it so they must control it.

It's quite obvious we are dealing with psychopathic control freaks that will go through any length for power. It is the extreme end of the human condition. And it is very possible that Iran is in on the conspiracy too. Things are so departmentalized around the world it doesn't take many to be in on the conspiracy for it to remain afloat.

A lot of people mention how it is possible for so many to be in on it without leaking? Well things leak all the time and whistleblowers come forward, but until the Mass Media says "Nukes do not exist" or "The Earth is Flat" society will not accept it. I guarantee if the news said it was a hoax it would trend on Twitter instantly.

If the government wanted control, weed would be perfect. In high quantities, it makes you lazy, hungry, and open to suggestion.

Or they'd use soma.
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Death-T

  • 504
  • Conspiracy theories are my bread and butter.
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #565 on: February 08, 2012, 11:38:52 AM »
If everyone knew the world was flat, nukes were fake and we are the center of our known universe.... Then what is there to be afraid of? Why would we give so much power to the governments that do not care about us.

Wars, plague, depression, economic problems, viruses, drowning, sharks, etc.

We don't give governments control over us because the world is round and nukes exist. If that was the case - how the hell do you explain the governments before 1945?

They do not control us with fear. I suggest looking up the concept of a 'social contract.' That and the fact it seems that human nature tends to drift towards organization.

The very fact that Marijuana is illegal should prove that things are not balanced in our society.

..... Widespread use 'for the hell of it' is illegal. Medical purposes are not in many states.... what was your point again? And how does this relate to nuclear weapons?

Things are so departmentalized around the world it doesn't take many to be in on the conspiracy for it to remain afloat.

Prove it. I can state random things and claim they're true too. Here - 'I believe that JFK was assassinated by a ninja.'

Well things leak all the time and whistleblowers come forward, but until the Mass Media says "Nukes do not exist" or "The Earth is Flat" society will not accept it.

I want you to compile a list of these whistle-blowers and present them on this thread. Preferably in order of their importance as well as the amount of proof they have presented. Otherwise, your statement is worthless. I can state any number of random things and claim they're true. Are they? Well until I present some truth - not really. 
" Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. " - Albert Einstein

" We are imperfect.  We cannot expect perfect government. "  ~William Howard Taft

*

iWitness

  • 1173
  • If the earth is round then what is your problem?
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #566 on: February 08, 2012, 12:27:11 PM »
Well I have experienced Weed in high quantities over long periods of time and can assure you that it did not make me lazy or open to suggestion. Hungry yes  ;D Creative yes, grounded absolutely. Happy You betcha
Disclaimer: I am confused. Everything I say is speculative and not admissible in a court of law; however, I am neither insane nor a threat to myself or others. I am simply curious about everything in life and enjoy talking about crazy shit. Oh, & btw I like turtles.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #567 on: February 08, 2012, 12:42:25 PM »
If the government wanted control, weed would be perfect. In high quantities, it makes you lazy, hungry, and open to suggestion.
Or they'd use soma.

As much as I hate to agree with iWitness on this one the fact that marijuana is illegal is just mind blowingly stupid.  Its been made illegal twice, and for the exact opposite reason each time.  Then Reagan suffocated a bunch of monkeys using marijuana smoke and claimed it kills brain cells.  Then you have the fact that industrial hemp is also illegal to grow even though you cannot get high from it and you start to see that they made it illegal because they wanted to have a legitimate reason (or legal) to arrest anti-vietnam war protesters.  Today we spend huge amounts of money to fight an unsuccessful war against it, when in terms of addictiveness and danger its one of the safest drugs on the planet (safer than most pain killers).

In terms of it being a gateway drug, there is zero evidence that anything in pot makes you more likely to want to try crack cocaine, meth, or anything else.  The only reason it is a gateway drug is because its illegal and your dealer always asks you if you want to try something else.  And if you claim that it makes you want to feel what other "highs" feel like thats bullshit too, because alcohol is a drug, and its legal as well.

Anyways this really just tells you that the government is stupid/inefficient.  it does not say anything about nuclear bombs existing.

Oh and i don't smoke pot, i just want a rational government.


*

Lorddave

  • 18127
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #568 on: February 08, 2012, 01:35:30 PM »
Well I have experienced Weed in high quantities over long periods of time and can assure you that it did not make me lazy or open to suggestion. Hungry yes  ;D Creative yes, grounded absolutely. Happy You betcha
So when high on weed you were more productive at work than if you weren't high? 
Tell me, have you ever video taped yourself getting high? 

If the government wanted control, weed would be perfect. In high quantities, it makes you lazy, hungry, and open to suggestion.
Or they'd use soma.

As much as I hate to agree with iWitness on this one the fact that marijuana is illegal is just mind blowingly stupid.  Its been made illegal twice, and for the exact opposite reason each time.  Then Reagan suffocated a bunch of monkeys using marijuana smoke and claimed it kills brain cells.  Then you have the fact that industrial hemp is also illegal to grow even though you cannot get high from it and you start to see that they made it illegal because they wanted to have a legitimate reason (or legal) to arrest anti-vietnam war protesters.  Today we spend huge amounts of money to fight an unsuccessful war against it, when in terms of addictiveness and danger its one of the safest drugs on the planet (safer than most pain killers).

In terms of it being a gateway drug, there is zero evidence that anything in pot makes you more likely to want to try crack cocaine, meth, or anything else.  The only reason it is a gateway drug is because its illegal and your dealer always asks you if you want to try something else.  And if you claim that it makes you want to feel what other "highs" feel like thats bullshit too, because alcohol is a drug, and its legal as well.

Anyways this really just tells you that the government is stupid/inefficient.  it does not say anything about nuclear bombs existing.

Oh and i don't smoke pot, i just want a rational government.
Oh I'm not saying it should be illegal.  In high quantities, alcohol is far worse.  I used to be totally against it but after a great deal of research and the whole Portugal experiment, I've retracted my opinion and think it should be legal in the same way alcohol is.

As for it being a gateway drug, I disagree on that.
The reason I disagree is mostly based on experience but here's my rational for it:
You smoke weed to get high.  If you don't wanna get high, you wouldn't do it.  Period.
Now, your body is very good at adapting to things.  Every single drug you take, if taken often enough (caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, Prozak, etc...) will have it's effect diminish simply because your body has adapted to it.
The two ways to solve this problem and keep the levels the same is either
a) Use more of the drug (ingest, smoke, put into your veins, etc...) over the same period of time.
b) Find something stronger.

With Caffeine, there really aren't any drugs that do the same job that are easy to obtain and produce a bigger impact so instead you just drink more coffee or switch to espressos.
With alcohol you may work from beer to mixed drinks to straight shots of Whiskey.
With nicotine you just smoke more cigarettes.
With Prozak, you either take more of it or you get a stronger drug.
With Weed you either smoke more of it or you find something stronger. 

So, when the choices for weed are:
Smoke more
Or
Find something stronger

It's a gateway drug.  Doesn't mean you will go into harder drugs, just means that it's possible.
And if weed was legal, people who need help could get it without feeling like they'll be arrested. 
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #569 on: February 08, 2012, 01:40:21 PM »
Well I have experienced Weed in high quantities over long periods of time and can assure you that it did not make me lazy or open to suggestion. Hungry yes  ;D Creative yes, grounded absolutely. Happy You betcha
So when high on weed you were more productive at work than if you weren't high? 
Tell me, have you ever video taped yourself getting high? 

If the government wanted control, weed would be perfect. In high quantities, it makes you lazy, hungry, and open to suggestion.
Or they'd use soma.

As much as I hate to agree with iWitness on this one the fact that marijuana is illegal is just mind blowingly stupid.  Its been made illegal twice, and for the exact opposite reason each time.  Then Reagan suffocated a bunch of monkeys using marijuana smoke and claimed it kills brain cells.  Then you have the fact that industrial hemp is also illegal to grow even though you cannot get high from it and you start to see that they made it illegal because they wanted to have a legitimate reason (or legal) to arrest anti-vietnam war protesters.  Today we spend huge amounts of money to fight an unsuccessful war against it, when in terms of addictiveness and danger its one of the safest drugs on the planet (safer than most pain killers).

In terms of it being a gateway drug, there is zero evidence that anything in pot makes you more likely to want to try crack cocaine, meth, or anything else.  The only reason it is a gateway drug is because its illegal and your dealer always asks you if you want to try something else.  And if you claim that it makes you want to feel what other "highs" feel like thats bullshit too, because alcohol is a drug, and its legal as well.

Anyways this really just tells you that the government is stupid/inefficient.  it does not say anything about nuclear bombs existing.

Oh and i don't smoke pot, i just want a rational government.
Oh I'm not saying it should be illegal.  In high quantities, alcohol is far worse.  I used to be totally against it but after a great deal of research and the whole Portugal experiment, I've retracted my opinion and think it should be legal in the same way alcohol is.

As for it being a gateway drug, I disagree on that.
The reason I disagree is mostly based on experience but here's my rational for it:
You smoke weed to get high.  If you don't wanna get high, you wouldn't do it.  Period.
Now, your body is very good at adapting to things.  Every single drug you take, if taken often enough (caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, Prozak, etc...) will have it's effect diminish simply because your body has adapted to it.
The two ways to solve this problem and keep the levels the same is either
a) Use more of the drug (ingest, smoke, put into your veins, etc...) over the same period of time.
b) Find something stronger.

With Caffeine, there really aren't any drugs that do the same job that are easy to obtain and produce a bigger impact so instead you just drink more coffee or switch to espressos.
With alcohol you may work from beer to mixed drinks to straight shots of Whiskey.
With nicotine you just smoke more cigarettes.
With Prozak, you either take more of it or you get a stronger drug.
With Weed you either smoke more of it or you find something stronger. 

So, when the choices for weed are:
Smoke more
Or
Find something stronger

It's a gateway drug.  Doesn't mean you will go into harder drugs, just means that it's possible.
And if weed was legal, people who need help could get it without feeling like they'll be arrested.

I might agree if the numbers were stronger, only 4 out of 100 pot users use cocaine.  I see your point, but i think many more people are just going to turn to mixing weed and alcohol than turning to something stronger.  Or at least at UCSC (SO MUCH POT) thats been my experience.  people just use it too unwind after a long day, and if they want to party they smoke and drink.  Never have any of the pot users i know contemplated using cocaine because they use pot.

But yeah i see your point.