Perhaps pot could unlock a certain part of your brain, true--well, not UNLOCK, but guide you to that certain spot; I don't think it's anything you couldn't already do on your own, however, had you done enough searching.dreDREb13

I agree with everything you wrote in that post except this, and I'll try to explain why. Marijuana causes physiological effects because of the specific cannabinoids it posesses. Those cannabinoids alter your state of consciousness by temporarily binding to cannabinoid receptors that exist in your brain. Without marijuana, you can't just will yourself into this state of consciousness by "searching." So essentially, unlocking that door in your brain requires specific keys found in marijuana. Having said that, I should mention that your body can produce certain cannabinoids naturally during extreme physical exertion (ever heard of a runner's high?). However, the cannabinoids in marijuana are not identical to the ones produced by your own body, so the physiological effects of marijuana are unique. They can even vary greatly between different strains of marijuana because each strain contains a unique combination of cannabinoids.

I feel far more of the beatles music was influenced by LSD.

I also don't buy the "zomg weed makes you artistic" myth.

Pixel-Pirate

I actually agree to some extent. I think weed gives you a different perspective and alters the way you perceive and experience reality. If you're not creative to begin with and you smoke a joint, you're not going to turn into the next Paul McCartney. But if you are creative and smoke weed, the altered perspective that you have allows you to approach your art (music in the Beatles case) differently so you can create something special. So I'm basically saying that it can be a tool to amplify creativity in certain circumstances.

I don't have any experience with LSD and I'm not a Beatles historian, so I can't comment on whether LSD had a greater influence on their music. I can say, based on interviews they've done, that both drugs had a profound effect on their music.

Okay, sorry, it was dramatized. I thought about that as I wrote it but then I decided I didn't care enough to change it. >_> Regardless, I don't think we should thank pot or even advocate its use just because of a few albums made by people. Just because Hunter S. Thompson did so many drugs that lead to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas doesn't mean we should accept that they were the reason for the novel's brilliance. You can argue that they inspired him, and if they did, then so what? Lots of things inspired people to write things: war, death, heartbreak, fascism, love, and so many others. To pinpoint pot as being one that you absolutely HAVE to experience isn't at all recommendable. :? It just feels like a cheap reason for legalizing it when there's so many better arguments. Hell, to argue that one has to have an inebriated perspective on the world in general to create a work of art (not all the time, obviously, I know you're not saying that) is sort of irresponsible, as well.dreDREb13

I was implying that you'll probably enjoy those albums a lot more if you're high.

And I'm not arguing that people should become addicted to weed so they can become better artists. That's absurd. And I never said marijuana is the one thing you absolutely HAVE to experience.

What I was implying in that post is that weed offers a different perspective that many people find valuable, and if you're disciplined enough to not get addicted to weed (and frankly that only requires a modicum of discipline since it's not very addictive), it can help enrich your life. Just because some people are lacking the discipline doesn't mean it should be illegal for everyone. Some people get diabetes and die from eating too much candy. That doesn't mean candy should be illegal.

I'm not saying pot should be illegal. I actually want it legalized, but I hate those ****y arguments such as, "IF IT WEREN'T FOR POT, THERE WOULD NEVER BE ANYTHING CREATIVE EVER AND MUSIC WOULD SUCK!"

dreDREb13

And I hate it when people argue against a point I never made, especially when their argument is based on a logical fallacy.

[QUOTE="EolGul2"]

So your argument boils down to "cannabis should be illegal because cannabis is illegal."

Profound.

This is why you should do LSD.

Pixel-Pirate

Fixed for you.

How so? John Lennon referred to Rubber Soul as "the pot album" and one of the songs on Houses of the Holy has a reference to marijuana.

[QUOTE="EolGul2"]

I think the vast majority of people who are against marijuana have never actually gotten stoned, turned off the lights, and listened to a Beatles album.

Marijuana definitely has a place in society.

-Tish-

That depends on the situation. Marijuana is only harmful if you abuse it. Water, candy, and alcohol can all be harmful if you abuse them. That doesn't mean they should be illegal. All it means is that some people are really stupid.

[QUOTE="EolGul2"]

I think the vast majority of people who are against marijuana have never actually gotten stoned, turned off the lights, and listened to a Beatles album.

Marijuana definitely has a place in society.

lawlnametaken

This

except replace the beatles with rush:D

to the OP how am I harming mexico if I buy of some guy on my street who grows it in his house?

also the price would drop...its worth more pound/pound than gold and its a plant that can grow almost anywhere...

also there are no problems when legalizing pot look at pourtugal (decrim)

:)

Rush are great. Very, very technical. Peart's drumming is awe-inspiring.

I think the vast majority of people who are against marijuana have never actually gotten stoned, turned off the lights, and listened to a Beatles album.

Marijuana definitely has a place in society.

So your argument boils down to "cannabis should be illegal because cannabis is illegal."

Profound.

This is why you should smoke weed.

What do you think?

i have come up with many reasons why logically humans must have souls and here are a few 1 - the same physical action can result in different reactions in different ppl. for example if one person reads a joke (physical) then he will laugh (also physical). But if another person reads the same joke (same physical action) then he might not even laugh (different physical outcome). so according to ppl who dont believe in a soul the same physical action should hav the same physical reaction, but it is diffrent for differnt ppl. how can this be explained without the soulBe4tsnRhym3s

No two brains are exactly identical. Because we differ physically, there's no need to claim our differences are caused by an immaterial soul.

2 - the mind places importence on order like if you listen to your favorite song it sounds good right? what if you play the same notes in a different order, not so good any more right. again why wud the same physical experience in a diffrent order be changing to the final outcome. i put more effort in this thread than my last ones because i don't want it to be locked i just want a discussion and 2 here other opinions on this. thanksBe4tsnRhym3s

I don't know enough about music theory to answer this with any authority, but that doesn't mean that a soul is the only possible explanation. It seems like you're just saying "I don't know how _______ works, therefore the only explanation is that a soul is responsible."