PDA

View Full Version : Have you ever programmed while drunk or under.....



Alphabird32
09-02-2002, 10:43 PM
The influence of drugs?

If so, share your story!!!!

black
09-02-2002, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by Alphabird32
The influence of drugs?

If so, share your story!!!!

drugs ? Anyone could remember he or she is a programmer that time ?

civix
09-02-2002, 11:57 PM
Oh Bonny...You made this thread just for me, didnt you?

Well anyway..I've only been drunk one time in my life, and I did program while I was.

[ Dumb old boring story ]

'Twas a saltry day in June.. I had just gotten back from a barn 'party', and had just happened to get drunk. I sat down at my computer, and opened my ancient copy of Dev-C++. I started including dumb headers, defining stupid macros, and using way too much cout. Below is the start of the progam's source code.




#include "eatmyshorts.h"
#include <iostream.h>
#include "kickme.h"
#include <conio.h>

#define beer cout<<"I love beer";
#define dooby cout<<"I love pot";



After writing that...I woke up.

[/ dumb old boring story]

Anyways folks (and Bonny), I have personally never been drunk, and everything that I wrote above this paragraph is pure bullsh!t.

From what i've heard, most people who get drunk or are under the influence of drugs cannot remember what they did during that time period...

I'm not saying that what I just said is correct, it's just what I have heard; from friends, relatives, and police officers. (and dont forget the TV)

Cheeze-It
09-03-2002, 12:18 AM
Yeah, because it's so dangerous. You're really living on the edge
when you write code while drunk. I can imagine the hilarious
situations that people must have been in while coding under the
influence of drugs...


"There was this time, you know, yeah, I put a colon instead of a
semi-colon after a statement. It was so trippy, man"

TechWins
09-03-2002, 12:46 AM
See, Ethic, here's how it is... immature 12 year olds get the biggest kick out of stuff like this. i think it might be because it makes them feel special inside or something. like they have this burning desire to hear people say boobs and penis. now this doesn't apply to all 12 year olds, just the immature ones like Ruflano/Golden Bunny/Alphawhatever...

face_master
09-03-2002, 12:49 AM
I've wanted to, but i'm not usually home while i'm under that condition...but I have thought to myself: "Gee, I could like, write a program that like, uhh, does that thing...whoa"... :D

face_master
09-03-2002, 12:51 AM
>> like they have this burning desire to hear people say boobs and penis.

Boobs! HAhaahahA! Penis! HAHahAHHhaha!

mithrandir
09-03-2002, 01:38 AM
No and I can't really see why you would want to program when under the influence.

rahaydenuk
09-03-2002, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Alphabird32
Have you ever programmed while drunk or under.....The influence of drugs?

No, I've never been drunk or under the influence of drugs, call me what you will.

ober
09-03-2002, 10:06 AM
why should anyone call you anything? I commend that :)


I however, have coded slightly drunk... although I was within my wits and did just fine ;)

rahaydenuk
09-03-2002, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by ober5861
why should anyone call you anything? I commend that :)

Thanks. Some people assume you're no fun, unless you drink large amounts of alcohol. It's good to see that it's not everyone :).

Govtcheez
09-03-2002, 10:18 AM
> Some people assume you're no fun, unless you drink large amounts of alcohol.

Well, that's basically true. I mean - no one liked me before I started to consume gallons upon gallons of frosty cold grain-based beverages. Sadly, that still holds true. But now, at least I've got my cold mug of brew to talk to!

Seriously - no one's gonna call you anything for that, rah - there's nothing wrong with it at all. I think there's something more wrong with people who get tanked and try to code. I mean - c'mon - you know you can't concentrate on anything - who are you trying to fool?

Hillbillie
09-03-2002, 01:20 PM
I programmed most of a DOS GUI whilst high. It turned out fine as an executable, but the code was horrible to read and understand. Granted, I coded this when I was a newbie.

>From what i've heard, most people who get drunk or are under the influence of drugs cannot remember what they did during that time period...<

Of course this depends entirely apon the drug at hand...

Cheeze-It
09-03-2002, 01:50 PM
About 18 years ago, I had a huge problem with alcohol. I would
drink, probably, 12 beers per day... After my son was born, I
knew I had to stop. Well, my son is now having a son of his own.
I'm going to be a grandfather, and now I'm thinking it's time for
me to give up marijuana. It's time I take responsibility for my life.

ober
09-03-2002, 01:54 PM
wow ethic... that was a hell of a long labor day weekend huh?

confuted
09-03-2002, 07:25 PM
it takes brains to write a program. it doesn't take brains to get drunk and do drugs. It does require a lack of them, though...I've never coded while drunk or high because I don't get drunk or high, nor will I ever.

Prelude
09-03-2002, 07:27 PM
I'm always under the influence when writing programs. The influence of caffeine, but it's still a drug. ;)

-Prelude

confuted
09-03-2002, 07:31 PM
yeah, while...it's legal :P Anyway, I just got finished going a month without drinking any caffeine, it felt kinda good...I was quite the addict before, some of you should probably try it...(no offense, it's good stuff, I know)

Hillbillie
09-03-2002, 07:34 PM
>wow ethic... that was a hell of a long labor day weekend huh?<

ROFL!!! :D What's your son's name? :p

>it doesn't take brains to get drunk and do drugs. It does require a lack of them, though<

Wow, now that's a biased, unresearched, and uninformed opinion. If you are saying that only idiots with lack of brain cells do drugs then I'm sorry, but you are a sadly, sadly mistaken little boy.

Now, if you want to change "people who use drugs" to "people who use drugs irresponsibly" then I'd agree, and we both could be on our merry way.

confuted
09-03-2002, 07:42 PM
I am referring to knowingly using such items as hallucinagens (spelling?) or other things that just completely blast your brain out of the water for a while, never to completely return...I've seen too many kids that have smoked so much pot that they are, in essence, permanently stoned, because they can't say an intelligent thing anymore...

Hillbillie
09-03-2002, 08:41 PM
So, you are accusing that marijuana kills brain cells? That's complete nonsense. Fact: 1 out of 3 people smoke marijuana on a regular basis. Are you saying that 1/3 of the world's population is so doped up they don't know what they are doing?

Besides, there's never been a study that proves marijuana kills brain cells. I'm dead serious. Not the kind of info they teach you in DARE, eh?

Anyway, trust me. If anyone is around the pot-smoking scene here, it's me. I've smoked a whole lot of cannabis in the last few years. I've been around numerous people that have done so also. I would hardly call myself or those people idiots.

I'm not saying everyone that smokes weed is automatically not an idiot. I'm merely saying that smoking weed does not mean you are an idiot.

And to say that people who consciously use hallucinogenic drugs are idiots with no logic or rational reasoning is a pathetic generalization at best. I know a bunch of people on this very board (No, I will not give names.) and at FD that have used all kinds of drugs, and these people are amongst the most intelligent beings I've conversed with.

I'm sorry about going on this rant, but it really ........es me off when people who are not informed make untrue statements/observations.

P.S. I don't think (I won't say there isn't because I honestly have nothing to back this up with.) there has ever been a case of psychosis (when you get "stuck" in a drug high) related to marijuana. There has been numerous cases with LSD and psilocybin, but they are 1 in a million.

Alphabird32
09-03-2002, 09:25 PM
Well, anyways. I'm making progress. I've made a regular topic and only got bashed by one poster.

Hillbillie
09-03-2002, 10:02 PM
Making progress on what?

Alphabird32
09-03-2002, 11:15 PM
on not being hated

civix
09-03-2002, 11:20 PM
Bonny is a split-personality.

If you ever find Alphabird32 and GBonny something-or-other on AIM, they're both the same person.

Govtcheez
09-04-2002, 07:32 AM
HB, usually I wouldn't question anything you say about pot (because you know a lot more about it than me), but 1 in 3 a regular user? I don't know, dude - that seems way too high.

Hillbillie
09-04-2002, 09:32 AM
Cheez, you're right. It doesn't sound correct because it's not. I mixed that statistic up with another one.

1 out of 3 people HAVE smoked, not regularly smoke, weed. I apologize for that mistake.

As for how many people smoke REGULARLY, it's around 1 in 4 people. I know this is true, and if anyone would like I'll provide sources (as I always do if anyone asks).

Again, I'm sorry for the mistake. I'm glad you caught it. :)

BTW, "regularly" doesn't necessarily mean everyday. It just means periodic. This could be once a day or once a month...

Cheeze-It
09-04-2002, 11:48 AM
My son's name is "Chammie."

compjinx
09-04-2002, 04:52 PM
>>So, you are accusing that marijuana kills brain cells? That's
>>complete nonsense. Fact: 1 out of 3 people smoke marijuana
>> on a regular basis. Are you saying that 1/3 of the world's >>population is so doped up they don't know what they are doing?

I would like to see how they figure that 1 out of 3 people smoke it (taking poles on programming message boards?).


I know of a story where a group of programmers were drunk when they programmed:

There were ten of them, one of them had gone in and purchased several boxes of "drink", he hopped in the car and drove them all to another's apartment. once there they started drinking and drinking. then one of them bumped the "on" button of the computer and they all were instantly attracted to the glow of the screen. One of them sat down and started coding, when he fell of the seat another would quickly take his place, this continued throughout the night.

The next day they had the retail version of Windows 98.

confuted
09-04-2002, 07:17 PM
Hillbillie, I would like to see those sources. Reliable, recent sources...nothing from Potsmoker's Magazine, 1973 or anything like that (:

-KEN-
09-04-2002, 07:46 PM
>>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 :rolleyes: 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 :p 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"

Hillbillie
09-04-2002, 08:22 PM
>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. :)

Hillbillie
09-04-2002, 08:47 PM
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 (http://www.norml.org). 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?

rahaydenuk
09-05-2002, 01:01 PM
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 (http://www.norml.org). 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,

Hillbillie
09-05-2002, 03:36 PM
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 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0964156849/qid=1031262149/sr=2-3/ref=sr_2_3/002-1102098-9194412)

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.

-KEN-
09-05-2002, 04:54 PM
>>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. :)

confuted
09-05-2002, 07:09 PM
>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?

Hillbillie
09-05-2002, 07:58 PM
>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."

I wish I was the one that got to have to fun disproving...it'd be so much easier. :)

Edit: Changed a few things, nothing too significant.

confuted
09-06-2002, 06:59 PM
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?


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_notes_1095.html#note10

confuted
09-06-2002, 07:09 PM
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...

Hillbillie
09-06-2002, 07:39 PM
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.

face_master
09-06-2002, 07:42 PM
>> I really don't want to turn this into a pro-weed vs. anti-weed debate. See my initial argument. <<

Damn doped-up hippes...

Hillbillie
09-06-2002, 07:44 PM
LOL, face_master, I love your avatar.

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

confuted
09-06-2002, 08:03 PM
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. :D


*edit: fixed the smiley

Hillbillie
09-06-2002, 08:21 PM
True, some of the independent sites are completely embarrassing to the pro-weed side. *talking to them* Leave it up to the pros, guys. :rolleyes:

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

confuted
09-06-2002, 08:25 PM
I got to it by following the marijuana.com link that you posted and then clicking on the next claim link at the bottom of that page.

http://www.marijuana.com/Exposing_02_1095.html

*edit: that's where I got all those quotes*

hermit
09-06-2002, 08:30 PM
maybe you should look at some of redhat linux screensavers?

you reckon they are under the influence or drugss?