Weed
- Thread starter belz
- Start date
- Replies 306
- Views 22K
Can't even be bothered replying to the whole thing, but it's pretty clear you don't understand International Trade. Firstly, going to define some key terminology:
Opportunity Cost: The cost of the next best alternative that is given up when deciding to produce or buy something else. E.G. The Government chooses to invest £50m into the NHS, the opportunity cost is what else that could have been spent on.
Comparative advantage - Every country holds a comparative advantage in some good. It's where one country has a lesser opportunity cost to produce a good in the other, it therefore creates a welfare gain for all countries involved created by the specialisation increasing global production of a good.
Right, so we do not hold a comparative advantage in Marijuana in any way. Which is also why your U.S. example is a horrid example for a tariff war, since neither do they. However, a country such as Jamaica does, so I will be referring to them.
When Jamaica produces it, they are giving up less to grow Marijuana than the UK would be. Therefore, demand for it shifts to Jamaica to gain benefit from comparative advantage. If you don't believe in my comparative advantage theory, then think about it. Do we hold a comparative advantage in manufacturing? No we do not. So do we produce for ourselves, no, we buy from Germany, China etc. Do we hold a comparative advantage in TV's? No, so we buy them from Japan.
If we choose not to take advantage of comparative advantage, then the UK government is forced to subsidise UK business to cover the loss of productivity and efficiency, so that our domestic companies can compete with the market price. But as you can see, if we're subsidising, we're spending tax revenue back to keep a float a none, or less profitable company, which will eventually fail. Again, I'll provide examples: UK coal and steel industries, they had become horribly more expensive than foreign options (mainly due to union power) and thus the government was forced to subsidise to prop up the industry, also known as funding a lame duck. Eventually, the government couldn't sustain the subsidisation (Or Thatcher wouldn't) and there was collapse.
So, that explains why we will be importing more than we produce domestically. Now, lets think why a tariff isn't going to work. (Or it will, but the government won't do it). A diagram will explain the theory behind the net welfare loss gained by a tariff:
So, we have welfare loss for a reason not to put a tariff on it. Now, here's the biggy. The EU. The UK has no control on what it puts a tariff on to, the EU has a common external tariff for all goods entering the EU, regardless of the country they are entering.
And it's nothing to do with the current account deficit we have, it's the fact that you're arguing we should legalise to benefit from taxation. If it's an import, then the money paid has gone out of the economy, and then the taxed product once it reaches shops is into the government. But the government loses potential tax revenue from the money that has left the economy.
And my other major argument against legalisation is British culture being far more irresponsible, some ruining it for the many I suspect. From your questions earlier in the thread about Britain and binge drinking, I assume you don't live here, so I won't bother arguing strongly. But, to put simply, I don't trust a lot of the society to be responsible with it, look at how Blakefish acted at the start of the thread for a good example.
At least you can put forth logical and reasonable reasons for legalisation, but unfortunately we can't differentiate between the responsible and those who would abuse the freedom.Chaz Sexington
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 3,388
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20678028
I agree with the "social good" part.
As for cannabis being a miracle herb, if it was easier to do research on it, we could find out considerably more about the active ingredients, which could be used to make far better medicine than just smoking weed. Then we could have legalised weed and have better drugs!
Can't even be bothered replying to the whole thing, but it's pretty clear you don't understand International Trade. Firstly, going to define some key terminology:
Opportunity Cost: The cost of the next best alternative that is given up when deciding to produce or buy something else. E.G. The Government chooses to invest £50m into the NHS, the opportunity cost is what else that could have been spent on.
Comparative advantage - Every country holds a comparative advantage in some good. It's where one country has a lesser opportunity cost to produce a good in the other, it therefore creates a welfare gain for all countries involved created by the specialisation increasing global production of a good.
Right, so we do not hold a comparative advantage in Marijuana in any way. Which is also why your U.S. example is a horrid example for a tariff war, since neither do they. However, a country such as Jamaica does, so I will be referring to them.
When Jamaica produces it, they are giving up less to grow Marijuana than the UK would be. Therefore, demand for it shifts to Jamaica to gain benefit from comparative advantage. If you don't believe in my comparative advantage theory, then think about it. Do we hold a comparative advantage in manufacturing? No we do not. So do we produce for ourselves, no, we buy from Germany, China etc. Do we hold a comparative advantage in TV's? No, so we buy them from Japan.
If we choose not to take advantage of comparative advantage, then the UK government is forced to subsidise UK business to cover the loss of productivity and efficiency, so that our domestic companies can compete with the market price. But as you can see, if we're subsidising, we're spending tax revenue back to keep a float a none, or less profitable company, which will eventually fail. Again, I'll provide examples: UK coal and steel industries, they had become horribly more expensive than foreign options (mainly due to union power) and thus the government was forced to subsidise to prop up the industry, also known as funding a lame duck. Eventually, the government couldn't sustain the subsidisation (Or Thatcher wouldn't) and there was collapse.
So, that explains why we will be importing more than we produce domestically. Now, lets think why a tariff isn't going to work. (Or it will, but the government won't do it). A diagram will explain the theory behind the net welfare loss gained by a tariff:
So, we have welfare loss for a reason not to put a tariff on it. Now, here's the biggy. The EU. The UK has no control on what it puts a tariff on to, the EU has a common external tariff for all goods entering the EU, regardless of the country they are entering.
And it's nothing to do with the current account deficit we have, it's the fact that you're arguing we should legalise to benefit from taxation. If it's an import, then the money paid has gone out of the economy, and then the taxed product once it reaches shops is into the government. But the government loses potential tax revenue from the money that has left the economy.
First of all, don't tell me I don't understand international trade. You don't know what I do or don't understand based on an FM thread where the subject wasn't even broached. And considering I studied this in college, I don't need a lecture on it. In short, I completely disagree with you (although you have most economists on your side), and what bothers me about you and these economists is that you assume that you are objectively correct and that those who disagree with you are objectively incorrect...I don't believe economics is as much of a hard science as they say it is (they say so partially because it's easier to measure everything with math and models, which are always 100% objective, but mostly because it is advantageous for them to see themselves as scientists), and it bothers me that I can see myself as being part of a debate with differing opinions, whereas they see the same debate as themselves lecturing an incorrect ignoramus who doesn't know the math and models well enough.
Second, I see you gave me a nice little summary from the free trade section of an econ textbook. This is not the place to do have a debate about this, but I will say you along with the people you are paraphrasing are very incorrect in the extent to which you believe in the infallibility of your models. It's the way you phrased the whole thing: it's clear that you think that everything you said is completely objective, that economics is a hard science, and that serious economic discourse can be based on a few models that don't exist in real space. In the real world, however, everything doesn't function exactly based on the simplistic models that economists come up with.
Sure, you gave me "proof" of comparative advantage, but that doesn't mean that you can make the next step that free trade and the elimination of tariffs will be beneficial in every instance. A lot of economists have done this over the past twenty years, and it's reckless, irresponsible scholarship. It's a good thing the discipline is finally being put under a great deal of scrutiny. I could discuss some of the reasons why the notion of "free trade always works" is utter madness, and how even David Riccardo's original example of comparative advantage was bogus (Britain forced Portugal to reduce tariffs on British cloth in order to help the British wool industry and destroy Portugal's, which was in its early phases, and Britain actually raised its tariffs on Portuguese wine to help out its own domestic alcohol industries and increase the trade surplus). I could also press you for examples of when "free trade" actually worked in development (I put free trade in quotes because there has been no instance of a nation using totally free trade, tariffs have always been around and always will be, it's just a matter of what level), considering that every single successful nation used a good deal of "protectionism" to develop its own industries. But I won't, since this is about weed and not free trade.
What you did next was exactly what economists these days do and exactly what they shouldn't be doing. Did you notice that you didn't mention Jamaica once after the initial few sentences where you specified that it was the country in question? What economists these days do is try and prove their point with math and models without even looking at the example in question. But the reality is that every good and every economy is different, and what applies in one place doesn't apply in another. There is no "one size fits all trade policy" that works for every time, place, and product. So what you need to do, rather than rely on your model, is to specifically state how high tariffs or low tariffs on foreign weed will affect the British economy.
The reasons your comparative advantage model doesn't work here are numerous, but the most important is that we're not talking about raising tariffs on an existent good, we're talking about making an illegal commodity legal. It's a completely different situation, and one where comparative advantage doesn't apply.
Also, you're assuming weed already comes in from Jamaica and that legalization with tariffs (or a law banning the importation of weed) would cost the consumer more. I'm not familiar with British weed, but I bet you it is mostly homegrown or comes from Holland. The transportation costs across the atlantic are far too great to make a Jamaican-British weed trade profitable. Weed can actually be best grown indoors, so there's nothing about Jamaica that gives it a comparative advantage in weed (other than the fact that everyone there smokes it and it's plentiful). Jamaican weed is not nearly as good as what you'll find in the coffee-shops in Amsterdam. If you make weed legal in Britain, people will make big greenhouses for it and grow amazing weed, as good the best in the world. So you don't even need tariffs or laws against foreign weed to prevent a trade deficit. If anything, legalization would help create a trade surplus, because the fine British weed would be exported to countries where it is illegal (France, for example).
But for the sake of your model, let's assume the Brits can't produce weed as efficiently as Holland can, and puts a tariff on Dutch weed to prevent its contribution to the trade deficit. This won't hurt the British economy. The argument for free trade is that tariffs enable the survival of inefficient industries that wouldn't be able to compete with their foreign counterparts. This nation's resources would be better spent on other industries, and having to buy the domestic-made good will cost the consumers more.
One of two things could happen with the legalization of weed: consumption stays the same, and the same people who smoke continue to smoke (those that don't remain scared of it and don't try it). In this scenario, the price goes way down for a number of reasons, and I'll list the ones I can think of off of the top of my head (and this has been proven, weed is cheaper when legal): dealers don't jack up the prices due to the danger of their trade and the logistics of having to import **** illegally from other countries. Growing becomes much easier since it doesn't have to be clandestine, and more people grow (and in larger quantities) since it is legal, meaning the increased supply leads to a drop in price. In this scenario, the British consumer pays LESS for something they have traditionally bought. So this saves British people money that can be better spent elsewhere, which in theory should generate more economic activity. But of course, since it's legal, the government can regulate and tax it as much as it wants, which helps pay off the fiscal deficit.
The second scenario is what I suspect you think would happen: weed consumption will increase. This means that more people are buying weed, thus more people are involved in growing it. We're in the midst of a severe recession, so this is a great scenario. A new good appears that employs new producers. This would GENERATE economic activity. Some Brits spend some of their spare money on this new good, and people who were formerly unemployed now have a job making this new good.
And my other major argument against legalisation is British culture being far more irresponsible, some ruining it for the many I suspect. From your questions earlier in the thread about Britain and binge drinking, I assume you don't live here, so I won't bother arguing strongly. But, to put simply, I don't trust a lot of the society to be responsible with it, look at how Blakefish acted at the start of the thread for a good example.
Fair enough. I've never been to Britain, so maybe the social effects would be so great that it should be illegal. Here's a question though...how do you know that Brits will abuse it? From what I understand, your argument is that Brits abuse alcohol, so they'll probably abuse weed. I don't think that this is necessarily true. Alcohol and weed are very different. Alcohol is more of a social lubricant, something you do with a group of friends to have an exciting, good time on a weekend night. Weed is something you can do by yourself, or maybe with a small group...but it often times involves sitting around and watching TV and not doing much. People that go out and drink all of the time might not want to do this. It's a totally different activity. So while there are a lot of alcoholics in the UK, I think the stoners would be a different group. So I don't know if we know for sure how big this group would be and how much they would abuse it.
But I think that if anything, weed would just lead to less drinking, which might be good for you guys. Even if it's a bad thing, well, it's still going to be around, so wouldn't you prefer it if it was more regulated? If the weed-smokers didn't have to go to drug dealers to do so and support criminal activity? Also, what about for medical purposes? This way you could regulate its usage and keep people from abusing it. Also, what would you think about a trial period? Make it legal for a bit, see if it works? That way you can know for sure if it's a good idea or not. But my first instinct is that you always err on the side of freedom, that you always give people the freedom to engage in their own private activities and don't curb them unless you necessarily have to. This is the idea behind a liberal society.
For what it's worth, you did a very good job arguing, much better than most anti-weed people. As for the other people in the thread, keep in mind most of them are about 15, and a lot of them smoke weed because it's "cool" (again, something that wouldn't happen if it were legal, it's only cool because it's illegal and criminalized by the government/police/schools/society, but I digress) so don't expect anything more than what they've given you. I'll conclude by saying that as a former weed-smoker, I don't think it's nearly as bad as you make it out to be. You're 18: you're young and have the rest of your life ahead of you. So don't be too scared to try it if the opportunity comes up...you might like it. I never thought I would when I was your age, but I think it's a wonderful, mysterious plant that can be used for a wide variety of purposes with more positive effects than we even know about.
Now it's 7.30AM and I have a lot of preparation for work on Monday...I'm a complete waste of life and really need to get to bed. Good night.
OT: anyone watching the Deportivo v. Sevilla game? It's quite a game. Sevilla was down 2-0 with 10 men, and somehow scored 3 goals in the last ten or so minutes. One was a completely lucky goal (clearance bounced off of a Sevilla player right to their forward). The next one was a set piece, the keeper saved it and it happened to land right next to Negredo, the one Sevilla guy in the whole area, and he scored. Then they scored on a counter from a really tight angle. Unbelievable. Deportivo was the much better team for the whole game too.
Last edited:
I haven't used any economics textbooks, quit saying it. ¬.¬ We can't tax an import from Holland, or from outside the Eu. Did you not read what I said about the EU? There's no trade barriers within the EU, and there's a common external tariff for goods to the EU, not the UK. Of course comparative advantage applies, Britain can't produce ****. We hold comparative advantage in financial services, and we export next to nothing, our trade deficit is £4.1bn, and that's only because our banking sector produces so much, I am fairly **** certain that we'd import the stuff.
It doesn't matter how alcohol and weed are used, if they can't be responsible with alcohol, then I refuse to believe they can do the same with other drugs.
It doesn't matter how alcohol and weed are used, if they can't be responsible with alcohol, then I refuse to believe they can do the same with other drugs.
First of all, decriminalization is not the same as legalization, and there are ways Britain can decriminalize weed and still not allow its importation that I doubt would interfere with EU laws...for example, make a law that you have to get a permit to grow weed, and that weed can only be bought and sold if it came from someone with a permit.
Second, you haven't stated why Holland has a comparative advantage in weed, and your argument involving the financial sector is a weak one. You seem to think that because Britain has a competitive advantage in one area (finance), you think that another country it trades with (Holland) automatically has a competitive advantage in another area (finance). Just because Britain's financial sector is strong doesn't mean it can't produce anything and has to import everything. Weed is not like bananas. Anyone can grow it in their home if they want to. If you legalize/decrimalize weed in Britain, people will grow it in their homes, they won't import it. This is what has happened in every country that has lax weed policies.
This is why the Dutch have no comparative advantage with in weed production. Weed is grown indoors, and Brits will be able to do it just the same as the Dutch. And of course people will buy local since it's cheaper (doesn't have to come by boat). Now you might make an argument about start-up costs and the Dutch having an intial advantage, but weed is very easy to produce. You can grow some of the best weed in the world in your house if you know how to do it (using the internet and practice). And again, Britain has plenty of unemployed people, many of whom would be willing to do this, and it would generate economic activity. So there is no way people are going to be importing Dutch weed. Even if I was wrong and they did, the quantities aren't going to be enough to seriously affect the trade balance.
This probably seems impossible to you, but that's because you listen too much to what economists spit out in their classes these days. There's the idea of comparative advantage, and since there's a nice neat model for you, it must be true in every circumstance. Well, it aint. It depends on the country and depends on the good.
And most importantly, why are we even arguing about this? It's one of your weakest arguments IMO. Assuming you are right, since when do we criminalize a commodity just because it creates a trade deficit? That certainly isn't playing by the fair rules of the market, is it? Especially considering you're an EU nation. This line of argumentation is surprising coming from you...if you believe that firmly in free trade (and use models to back it up), you most certainly believe in markets, and criminalizing weed is unfair to the market and forces what exists in the free market into the black market...not to mention at a cost to the economy. I think this is why most people I know who are econ-oriented are in favor of legalization.
It's 8.10 and I am really getting to bed. If there was weed around though, I certainly would have smoked it and passed out at 2 AM. And my day tomorrow (today) would be a lot more productive than it will be.
Last edited:
Johnny Boy
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2008
- Messages
- 490
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
Say NO to drugs.
or say yes..I don't care.
or say yes..I don't care.
I haven't used it as a case against legalising it, I was using it to retort against the people saying it's a good thing due to taxation. I wasn't using a strong financial sector as an argument for anything, it's the fact that is the ONLY thing we are good at, hence why the vast majority of our goods are imported, I fail to see why we're going to change just for weed. And, I'm not blindly following an economic model. Comparative advantage is measured in terms of opportunity cost. To privatise and liberalise the whole market for weed means giving up land we already, or could use for say potatoes. We are far better at growing potatoes than Jamaica are, and they are far better at growing Marijuana. Voila, comparative advantage. Growing potatoes is in fact one of the few things we do produce well, so we therefore have a comparative advantage in there over potatoes, so again, I believe weed will most likely be imported.
And I'm really, really sick of you insulting my economic credentials, when you're the one acting like some renegade economist going against the traditional theories. Also, you're acting like I'm repeating something I learnt in a class, I have in no way shape or form studied the market for marijuana in economics, and again, if you knew something about economics you would know that there is no right or wrong, you put forth your points based on economic theories and form your own personal conclusions based from them. For instance, our monetary policy committee has often disagreed on interest rates, yet they're all extremely talented and intelligent within the subject. You discrediting me for "learning it in a class" is ridiculous of you, and being so aggressive over it only goes to discredit your arguments. I could criticise you for being so aggressive against economic theories that have been proven in the real world countless times, but you clearly have - some sort - of capacity to debate the effects, it's a shame you ruin it for yourself.
And don't twist beliefs over the free market, you must see how retarded that argument looks? You're saying that the free market should be left to allocate all resources, so then, should we allow the free market to under-allocate public goods? I heavily doubt you believe that, so why shouldn't the government step into the market for demerit goods too? Foolish argument.
You're not listening to my arguments. What 'land' will be used for weed? Weed is grown INDOORS. Anyone can grow amazing weed indoors, you don't even need a greenhouse for it. That's why they wouldn't import weed from Holland. It would be too expensive to bring it over by boat when you could just grow it in your own basement or buy it from the guy down the street. You might "believe" weed will be imported, but can you name me another country that has legalized weed that imports it? Canada for example, which is compeletely dependent on the US economy, grows its own weed. It's absolutely freezing most of the year, and they grow it indoors (although a lot of people grow it outdoors, too).
Again, in order to show that your comparative advantage model works here you have to prove that Jamaica or Holland has a comparative advantage in weed. Even Riccardo would tell you that. Except that they don't. Jamaica is way too far away so you wouldn't import your weed from them (for the same reason that Canada doesn't), and their weed isn't nearly as good as Holland's (it's plentiful in Jamaica because everyone grows it, but it's not nearly as high quality as what you get in Holland, where they grow it indoors with the most advanced techniques). Again, Holland has no comparative advantage in weed...there is not a major climate difference between the two countries, and even if there was, that wouldn't matter. Weed is grown indoors for Christ's sake. You think that because Britain has a comparative advantage in one thing (finances), that that means that other countries have a comparative advantage in everything else. It's true that Britain does import a lot of goods (that other countries have a comparative advantage in), but weed has little to do with these goods...it is not labor or land intensive. It can easily be grown in your basement.
Sigh. When did I 'insult' your 'economic credentials?' And what credentials do you have, by the way? Aren't you 18? I'm assuming neither of us have any economic credentials. More importantly, you were the one that started the post with "first of all, you clearly don't understand international trade" and then proceeded to lecture me on comparative advantage (without explaining at all how it applied to weed). As for me being a "renegade economist," well, praise the lord but a lot of people these days would agree in general with what I had to say, and that includes people within the discipline of economics. The crisis has caused people to re-think a lot of things, especially how we think about the discipline.
As for saying you parrotted stuff in class on marijuana, I wasn't accusing you of that, it's clear that you haven't studied the economics of marijuana, I was accusing you of doing what most economists do. Start with a model that may or may not be relevant to the particular commodity or economy we are discussing, and then fail to explain how that model even applies. You gave me the whole basic summary of the theory of comparative advantage, and then didn't even mention once how it applied to weed (other than your explanation that 'Britain has a strong financial sector, so that means they'll import it,' which as explained before, is incorrect, even within your model of comparative advantage).
As for your claim that "if I knew anything about economics, I would know that there is no right or wrong answer," here you clearly show that either you didn't read my arguments or that you didn't understand them. I was accusing YOU of making that claim. You were the one that started off the debate by saying "well it's clear that you don't understand international trade" and then proceeded to show the model of comparative advantage, and by implication, that free trade always leads to both economies becoming more profitable, etc. The very fact that you assume these free trade theories are "proven" shows how objective you think this is, which is what I was criticizing you far. Of course you have most of the mainstream economists of the past 20 years on your side, but many scholars have been calling these people into question over the years, and thankfully people are listening to them now.
And as for having "learned it in class," maybe you did learn it in class, maybe you didn't. That wasn't the criticism. All I was saying is that the way you formulated your argument was very typical of the standard, run-of-the-mill economist, and I was simply criticizing you for how you did it (trying to use models without explaining how they actually applied to the commodity in question). Even if a professional economist made the same exact argument, I would respond in exactly the same way.
As for being aggressive against "proven theories," well, as you said before, this isn't a hard science, and very little is actually "proven." What is "proven" and seems to work out in models in abstract space often times is much more complex in reality with many unseen factors. Most importantly, every economy and every commodity is unique. Weed is a very unique one. It can be grown anywhere and it's not labor intensive.
But the fact that you simply label me as a nutcase for disagreeing with the notion that free trade is always the answer shows how close-minded you are and how objective you think the discipline is. You have some more reading to do.
Sigh. Where did I say we should allow the free market to allocate everything? You're definitely reading very much into what I believe, which you don't know about (these are issues I haven't discussed). I am certainly not a libertarian, and I don't think the market should allocate everything. I was merely framing the argument in economic terms because it seems you like that. Anyways, the reason the government, in economic terms, shouldn't ban this good is because it is profitable. I already stated this. There already is a market for weed, but it exists within the black market. The question is, do we want to legalize this, put it on the free market, and tax and regulate it? By moving it into the free market, you lower the price, which helps the British consumer, and you can tax it, which helps the fiscal deficit. As I stated before, if consumption increases, well that increases economic activity. If not, than at least you're saving British consumers money that could be better spent elsewhere, and you're reducing the size of the black market and crime.
Again, as for banning demerit goods, what other demerit goods are banned? Now I'm sure you'll proceed to list off certain poisons and other materials that are illegal in the production of a product (previously used because they were cheaper than healthier or safer materials), for example, asbestos (used to be used in construction). But there is a difference between consumer protection and banning something that people know about. Asbestos was banned because it was clearly dangerous and had no positive effects, and most importantly, to protect the consumer. The consumer might not have time to thoroughly research everything he or she buys and all of the materials involved in it, so this person might not know that a)asbestos is bad, and b)that what he or she is buying even contains asbestos. This is different from weed. When someone buys weed, they know what they are getting. Now they may not know all of the negative effects, just as someone buying the Big Mac might not know how it's going to clog their arteries, but we educate people about both of these things in health class and we assume that the consumer makes the right choice.
The government normally doesn't ban "demerit" goods, because we live in a liberal society that values the individual choice of the consumer. Drugs, however, have been criminalized, and it depends on the society, but it usually has something to do with a misplaced notion of morality (though in the US it often times stemmed from race). There are always the self-righteous few who want to regulate the behaviors of other people.
As I said before, your argument dealing with weed being too socially destructive for us to legalize it is by far your best one, so stick to it.
---------- Post added at 08:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:54 AM ----------
Oh, and if you're so convinced of the superiority of the theory of comparative advantage and free trade, might want to check this out (originally published as an article, later included as chapter 4 in his book Imperialism).
Harry Magdoff, "Economic myths and imperalism," Imperialism: From the Colonial Age to the Present, 1978
---------- Post added at 08:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 AM ----------
Couldn't figure out how to get to the article, but from its description and abstract it did not find anything involving the same type of dependency on THC that you see with tobacco and heroin, which are chemically addictive. The conclusion merely stated that the withdrawal symptoms didn't vary across demographics. All of the withdrawal symptoms involved the side effects of weed: the withdrawal effects they listed were stomach problems, anxiety, increased *** drive, and cravings. As for stomach problems, weed speeds up your digestive system, so if you're used to doing this every day, and then you stop, yeah, it'll cause you stomach problems. As for anxiety, yeah, weed relaxes you, so if you're used to that and then you stop, well, you'll have anxiety. Increased *** drive: weed decreases your *** drive, so if you're used to that and then you'll quit, you'll see an increase in your *** drive. Cravings: these are psychological. If you're used to doing something, and then stop, you get cravings for it. The same thing happens with FM.
Smoking it is enough evidence for me!
Last edited:
EnemaOfTheState
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2009
- Messages
- 226
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I'm hoping if I keep smoking it then one day I'll become The Dude.
More people abuse alcohol, and I'm saying that booze and weed are on the same page. If anything, I reckon alcohol is worse.
In fact, to prove my point - I'm high right now. If I was wankered right now, I couldn't write this legibly.
More people abuse alcohol, and I'm saying that booze and weed are on the same page. If anything, I reckon alcohol is worse.
In fact, to prove my point - I'm high right now. If I was wankered right now, I couldn't write this legibly.
Chaz Sexington
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 3,388
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
All I did was see the picture and want to roll a spliff lol.
Reece_Hope
Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 150
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
i do, i do some weed
it's just ******* good stuff man
it's just ******* good stuff man