Have you ever programmed while drunk or under.....

This is a discussion on Have you ever programmed while drunk or under..... within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; >>wow ethic... that was a hell of a long labor day weekend huh? LOL, seriously... Anyhow, I don't think I've ...

  1. #31
    Just one more wrong move. -KEN-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    3,230
    >>wow ethic... that was a hell of a long labor day weekend huh?

    LOL, seriously...

    Anyhow, I don't think I've ever tried to code while drunk or high, but I have played warcraft while drunk...it's an interesting experience:

    "KillerKen316: Haaha! ddi u se him blew up!?!?! LMFALORMDOD!!!!!"

    but usually when I'm f'ed I'm not at home...

    Bleh, all the FD'ers know about the football game story I'm never drinking (by myself) before a game again. And at least this time I'll avoid my teachers and uncle...oy...


    Uhh...and I'm pretty sure I've heard all the things about marijuana that HB's saying. Marijuana is a much more common drug than anyone realizes. I stopped completely of my own will...just didn't enjoy it as much anymore. Plus, at the time, Half-Baked was the only thing to watch I probably had a tally up in the hundreds for that movie. Alcohol's more the thing that I want to kill myself with - "I know I'm drinking myself to a slow death, but then again I'm in no hurry"

  2. #32
    Disagreeably Disagreeable
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    711
    >Hillbillie, I would like to see those sources.<

    Sure thing. I'll either post them here or PM to you later (maybe tomorrow). I'm beat from school and going to the dentist. *cringe* If I don't get them to you by tomorrow, PM me and tell me to hurry my ass up.

    >I'm never drinking (by myself) before a game again.<

    So is that what happened? You drank by yourself? *sigh* Moderation, dear Ken, moderation.

  3. #33
    Disagreeably Disagreeable
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    711

    Sources

    Just searching I found this: http://www1.lunarpages.com/subversion/weed.html

    In 1996 the rough U.S. population was 200,000,000 and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) surveyed 74 million people. Of those 74 million, 25,752,000 (35%, estimated 77 million in the U.S. at that time) had tried pot at least once in their life.
    About 1 out of every 3 people have tried it, just like I said.

    18.4 million (24%) had smoked it within the last year (estimated 50 million total U.S.)
    About 1 out of 4 people had used it in the last year. This isn't as regularly as I had hoped - I'll try to find another source backing me up on that claim.

    Marijuana is the third most popular recreational drug in America (behind only alcohol and tobacco), and has been used by nearly 80 million Americans. According to government surveys, some 20 million Americans have smoked marijuana in the past year, and more than 11 million do so regularly despite harsh laws against its use.
    - NORML. 11 million? Hmm, perhaps I'm going to have to put my foot in my mouth?

    For example, among 12-17 year olds, past year marijuana use was about 8% in 1992, compared to 24.1% in 1979. Among 18-25 year olds, past year use was 23 % in 1992, compared to 46.9 % in 1979.
    - http://www.marijuana.com/Exposing_01_1095.html. There was also a table showing that in 1994 (the most recent year on the table) 38.2% of high school seniors use marijuana. (Being a highschool senior, I can vouch that this claim seems about right to this day.)

    Is there anything I failed to give a source on?

  4. #34
    Registered User rahaydenuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    69

    Re: Sources

    Originally posted by Hillbillie
    Just searching I found this: http://www1.lunarpages.com/subversion/weed.html



    About 1 out of every 3 people have tried it, just like I said.



    About 1 out of 4 people had used it in the last year. This isn't as regularly as I had hoped - I'll try to find another source backing me up on that claim.



    - NORML. 11 million? Hmm, perhaps I'm going to have to put my foot in my mouth?



    - http://www.marijuana.com/Exposing_01_1095.html. There was also a table showing that in 1994 (the most recent year on the table) 38.2% of high school seniors use marijuana. (Being a highschool senior, I can vouch that this claim seems about right to this day.)

    Is there anything I failed to give a source on?
    There are so many sources available on the dangers/benefits of cannabis that it's incredibly hard to distuinguish between the ones, which really take an unbiased view, and those which take a biased view. In fact, anyone writing about cannabis is usually emotionally interested one way or the other, i.e. emotionally fighting for its ban or for its widespread acceptance.

    There are just as many sources telling us how much it can improve your mental power etc. as there are telling us that it leads to schizophrenic behaviour, and there are a wide variety of sources claiming various different numbers for the percentage of users etc.

    It is, without doubt one of the hardest subjects, on which to get unbiased, reliable information about.

    Regards,
    Last edited by rahaydenuk; 09-05-2002 at 01:16 PM.
    Richard Hayden. (rahaydenuk@yahoo.co.uk)
    Webmaster: http://www.dx-dev.com
    DXOS (My Operating System): http://www.dx-dev.com/dxos

    PGP: 0x779D0625

  5. #35
    Disagreeably Disagreeable
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    711
    Rich, those sources' sources are the government studies that the US department of something conducted. NORML's information is 100% true - they are a national organization, and stating false or misleading information would do more harm than good.

    Edit: Also, if anyone is looking for unbiased information on marijuana, there's a book called Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence

    Although I do not own a copy of this book, I've heard many a great things about this from the scientific community. It's regarded by many as one of the most accurate sources on marijuana. Every fact in the book has been referenced. It is, in essence, the end-all be-all for debate regarding marijuana. As I said before, it's not biased. It presents a load of facts about cannabis, even the dirty ones.
    Last edited by Hillbillie; 09-05-2002 at 03:47 PM.

  6. #36
    Just one more wrong move. -KEN-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    3,230
    >>So is that what happened? You drank by yourself? *sigh* Moderation, dear Ken, moderation.

    Err...I guess my statement would have only made sense if you were one of my RL friends...I was the only one of my friends to arrive, quite frankly, ..........ed out of my mind.

  7. #37
    Pursuing knowledge confuted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,916

    anyone checking their math?

    >In 1996 the rough U.S. population was 200,000,000 and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) surveyed 74 million people. Of those 74 million, 25,752,000 (35%, estimated 77 million in the U.S. at that time) had tried pot at least once in their life.

    25,752,000 / 74,000,000 = 34.8% (not a significant difference)
    however...
    200,000,000 * .348 = 67,600,000, a considerable difference from 77 million...almost 10 million people

    >And 4 million (5%) had used other drugs (coke, crack etc.) in the last year (12 million estimated total U.S.).

    4,000,000 / 74,000,000 = 5.4% * 200,000,000 = 10,810,810...not 12 million

    >an estimated 5 million people smoked marijuana every week
    They don't even have any math for that one...

    >Of those 4 million (those who used other drugs in the last month) they probably had all smoked marijuana too
    You know what they say about assumptions, don't you?

    >So only a small portion of people who had smoked marijuana once in the last year also used harder drugs, proving that marijuana does not usually lead to harder drugs.
    That logic doesn't follow, I'm sorry...it's based on the statement before, which didn't have any figures behind it...

    >Arguments from people against marijuana never contain proven facts, it is always, "in some studies it is shown that it can do...",
    And this is from a survey...it never states if it was a random sampling of the population...it could have been a sampling of people ages 28-36, people who were alive during the 70's...

    >Others might point out that 100,000 people a year seek help in quitting the drug. That does not mean it is addictive, it means that this relatively small portion of people have trouble with forming habits (these same people probably would have problems with gambling, etc.).
    ASSUMPTIONS UP THE WAZOO! Perhaps it means that 100,000 people try to quit each year, the rest don't even try.

    >It is true however that if you excessively abuse marijuana it has negative side effects
    They admit it...discretely

    >Not true at all, many people who smoke make high honor roll
    so do many that don't, let's see some percentages of honor roll pot smokers and drug free kids...

    okay, I debunked one source, is that good enough or should I do the rest?
    Away.

  8. #38
    Disagreeably Disagreeable
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    711
    >okay, I debunked one source, is that good enough or should I do the rest?<

    Of course not! If you want to prove me wrong, debunk them all... I'll provide a replacement for the first source, if you'd like some more fun.

    If you check the other ones, I'm sure they will be correct. Go ahead. NORML is too big to lie about things they need not lie about. (The government on the other hand, as you pointed out in debunking "my" source [i.e. the government's statistics], is a different story.) Same thing with the "Exposing Marijuana Myths: A Review of the Scientific Study" That article was written by the same two doctors that wrote "Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts", which is popular amongst a whole lot of the scientific community regarding marijuana.

    The point I was originally trying to make is that using a drug for recreational purposes does not make you an idiot. My previous arguments (about how there's a lot of people I know who use/have used drugs and they are the more intelligent people I know) are the ones I feel strong about. (And I think they are more credibile than any statistic.) I know that marijuana use is higher up in the scale than most people realize. When marijuana is as popular as alcohol amongst my peers, that tells you something.

    "It is impossible to learn something that you think you already know."

    [thinking="to self"]I wish I was the one that got to have to fun disproving...it'd be so much easier. [/thinking]

    Edit: Changed a few things, nothing too significant.
    Last edited by Hillbillie; 09-05-2002 at 08:19 PM.

  9. #39
    Pursuing knowledge confuted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,916

    next source: debunked

    MARIJUANA POTENCY HAS INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY

    The claim that there has been a 10-, 20- or 30-fold increase in marijuana potency since the 1970s is used to discredit previous studies that showed minimal harm caused by the drug and convince users from earlier eras that today's marijuana is much more dangerous.

    For more than 20 years the government-funded Potency Monitoring Project (PMP) at the University of Mississippi has been analyzing samples of marijuana submitted by U.S. law enforcement officials. At no time have police seizures reflected the marijuana generally available to users around the country and, in the 1970s, they were over- represented by large-volume low-potency Mexican kilobricks
    If the police don't seize marijuana available to the public, wtf are they seizing? If they are seizing it, isn't it likely that it was on it's way to the street, or already there? Also...so what if the marijuana of the 1970's was represented by "low-potency Mexican kilobricks?" Doesn't matter...if what is on the streets now is stronger than what was on the streets then, the potency has still increased...

    During the 1970s, the PMP regularly reported potency averages of under 1%, with a low of 0.4% in 1974. Quite clearly, these averages underestimate the THC content of marijuana smoked during this period.
    What? No source, no study, no experiment to back this up?

    Code:
    Mean Percentage THC of Seized Marijuana, 1981-1993
    
    1981  1982  1983  1984  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993
     
    2.28  3.05  3.23  2.39  2.82  2.30  2.93  3.29  3.06  3.36  3.36  3.00  3.32
    Okay, that table looks bad on the message board...but anyway, doing a linear regression on the information given in this table (I'm using the linear regression feature on a TI-82, I'm not doing it by hand, but go ahead and check my math if you want...)
    potency=.0598(year) - 115.939
    That may not mean a lot to some of you...but according to that, the potency would now be 3.85%...and it is increasing every year. Also, the table doesn't include the data from the 1970s, which the site stated was of a lower potency than the later dope.

    Oral THC circulates in the body longer at effective concentrations, and more of it is metabolized to an active compound; thus, it more frequently yields unpleasant psychoactive effects.
    I didn't put the other quote in here, because it was a couple pages back, but it said that in order for marijuana to have become popular in the 1960s and 1970s, it would have had to have a higher THC content than the government was reporting in order to cause psychoactive effects...but if the psychoactive effects are unpleasant, why would anyone want them? Talk about being inconsistent...

    Under the heading "Marijuana causes lung cancer"
    Except for their psychoactive ingredients, marijuana and tobacco smoke are nearly identical. 21 Because most marijuana smokers inhale more deeply and hold the smoke in their lungs, more dangerous material may be consumed per cigarette. However, it is the total volume of irritant inhalation - not the amount in each cigarette - that matters.
    Yes, while it may be true that you will get cancer faster if you smoke more cigarrettes, it doesn't change the fact that the smoking is what is causing it...and a few sentences later...

    Frequent marijuana smokers experience adverse respiratory symptoms from smoking, including chronic cough, chronic phlegm, and wheezing.
    Sounds like lung disease to me, I don't have any of those symptoms...and I don't have lung disease, either.

    And they admit it!
    >...an increased risk of cancer among frequent marijuana smokers is possible.


    It is now often claimed that marijuana use during pregnancy causes childhood leukemia. The basis for this claim is one study, in which . 5% of the mothers of leukemic children admitted to using marijuana prior to or during pregnancy. A "control group" of mothers with normal children was then created and questioned by telephone about previous drug use. Their reported .5 % marijuana use-rate was used to calculate a 10-fold greater risk of leukemia for children born to marijuana users. 46 Given national surveys showing marijuana prevalence rates of at least 10%, these "control group" mothers almost certainly under-reported their drug use to strangers on the telephone.
    Under reporting the drug use would actually skew the results THE OTHER WAY, in favor of marijuana...because it would mean that cases of childhood lukemia would show up in people who didn't report using the drug...and if you want to be completely objective, it doesn't actually make a difference one way or the other when you are dealing with PERCENTAGES.

    Okay, that's enough debunking for that site...except that I challenge you to go look at the names of the sources they used...many of them have a clear bias, just from the titles.
    http://www.marijuana.com/Exposing_no...95.html#note10
    Away.

  10. #40
    Pursuing knowledge confuted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,916
    oops, I forgot some stuff...for one, could you post the link to the information that you would like me to use on NORML? It's a big site...also...in my first post, I said recent info (: You're posting stuff from 1994, but I'm not gonna nail you for that...it's easy enough to just use the information you are providing...
    Away.

  11. #41
    Disagreeably Disagreeable
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    711
    First of all, you're debunking the other facts that you can find on those sites. You're going for the things that I'm not debating. Keep on chugging if you want, though. It's good reading.

    And you're right about a lot of the stuff - I believe the potency of marijuana has increased (dramatically) since the hippy days. But what people fail to realize is that most pot smokers smoke enough to get them to a comfortable high. What is the end result? Less material is smoked, thus less disease-causing chemicals are ingested. It's safer if anything.

    Same thing with marijuana causing cancer. I believe that in the smoked form, marijuana can cause lung cancer. Anyone believing otherwise is kidding themselves. Smoking anything has a good probablility to cause cancer of the lungs, throat, and mouth. Agreed?

    >If the police don't seize marijuana available to the public, wtf are they seizing?<

    Good question; I don't know WTF they are trying to get at with that statement...

    >except that I challenge you to go look at the names of the sources they used...many of them have a clear bias, just from the titles.<

    I don't think that's a valid point. I mean the only studies that are non-biased regarding marijuana now-a-days are usually medical studies funded by private institutions. The rest are either funded by the government (which has many clear reasons to keep marijuana and cannabis products illegal) or organizations that are pro-marijuana.

    The anti-weed studies usually report anti-weed findings. Likewise, the pro-weed studies usually report pro-weed findings. But the unbiased stuides (most medical studies regarding marijuana) generally report more findings that pro-weed people like...

    >Sounds like lung disease to me, I don't have any of those symptoms...and I don't have lung disease, either.<

    Nah, coughing isn't necessarily a sign of disease. But, like I said before, suggesting smoked marijuana can't cause lung cancer is absurd.

    Anyway, you're debunking the points I never expressed. Also, you're failing to debunk a lot of points [that I never expressed] that are valid.

    I really don't want to turn this into a pro-weed vs. anti-weed debate. See my initial argument.

  12. #42
    Refugee face_master's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    2,052
    >> I really don't want to turn this into a pro-weed vs. anti-weed debate. See my initial argument. <<

    [mumbles= to self] Damn doped-up hippes...[/mumbles]

  13. #43
    Disagreeably Disagreeable
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    711
    LOL, face_master, I love your avatar.

    15 bucks, little man. Put that **** in my hand.

  14. #44
    Pursuing knowledge confuted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,916
    I was just pointing out that many to most of the facts that these sites proving marijuana isn't bad don't work out mathematically or logically. I'm just saying that if they want to win their case, they should use better statistics. Maybe even hire someone that can use a calculator.


    *edit: fixed the smiley
    Last edited by confuted; 09-06-2002 at 08:09 PM.
    Away.

  15. #45
    Disagreeably Disagreeable
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    711
    True, some of the independent sites are completely embarrassing to the pro-weed side. *talking to them* Leave it up to the pros, guys.

    But NORML gets their facts from government and medical studies. I seriously doubt any of their info is incorrect or has flaws.

    I'm just curious, what source was this quote from?

    MARIJUANA POTENCY HAS INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY

    The claim that there has been a 10-, 20- or 30-fold increase in marijuana potency since the 1970s is used to discredit previous studies that showed minimal harm caused by the drug and convince users from earlier eras that today's marijuana is much more dangerous.

    For more than 20 years the government-funded Potency Monitoring Project (PMP) at the University of Mississippi has been analyzing samples of marijuana submitted by U.S. law enforcement officials. At no time have police seizures reflected the marijuana generally available to users around the country and, in the 1970s, they were over- represented by large-volume low-potency Mexican kilobricks

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Tell me the best 1 person programmed game made???
    By RNH in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-10-2007, 01:42 PM
  2. Have You Programmed Anything Cool?
    By thetinman in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 05-15-2006, 06:39 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-31-2006, 12:54 AM
  4. Drunk AIM
    By Govtcheez in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11-24-2002, 09:48 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21