LULZ at this post. Anyway, it seems weird to me that law students smoke pot on a regular basis. I just can't see how that'd be easy to explain to the bar, especially getting caught buying weed. Why risk it while you are in law school? UG record, high school record, etc. you can say "was in the past" but if you are caught while in law school........HJO wrote:How does most bars view marijuana charges? Do they drug test anywhere prior to granting admission? I have never smoked it but I am curious about these what the possible ramifications of a charge could be.
Pot smokers in law school Forum
- A'nold
- Posts: 3617
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm
Re: Pot smokers in law school
- mac.empress
- Posts: 299
- Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:45 pm
Re: Pot smokers in law school
None whatsoever.jackster2 wrote:So, let me see if I understand. When applying to L school all criminal charges (not convictions) must be disclosed to see if you're "fit" to be a lawyer, but then smoking dope is ok? So, it isn't illegal behavior that determines "fitness" only getting caught?
No hypocrisy here?
- SwollenMonkey
- Posts: 640
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:28 am
Re: Pot smokers in law school
You're a retard. Fixed.Alfonso Soriano wrote:Your a retard.Brownadam26 wrote:Smoking pot is so stupid. If you really want to ruin your entire life for a hit of Mary J do it. No telling who will drug test you and basically ruin your entire law school investment. I find it comical that there are people in a top 14 law school smoking pot however I wouldn't suggest glorifying it because YOU made it out. Some kids can't handle all the chemical reactions THC causes in ones brain on top of studying. If your smoking pot in law school and getting away with it...your days are numbered and you should drop that habit. lol your probably smoking crack if someone offers you
-
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:43 pm
Re: Pot smokers in law school
Great thread.. but the real problem is freebasing cocaine.
And I do NOT freebase cocaine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-ckIv1tiaU
And I do NOT freebase cocaine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-ckIv1tiaU
-
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 3:14 pm
Re: Pot smokers in law school
Hahaha that video is great.SgtLebowski wrote:Great thread.. but the real problem is freebasing cocaine.
And I do NOT freebase cocaine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-ckIv1tiaU
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- bilbobaggins
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:41 pm
Re: Pot smokers in law school
This chart compiled a bunch of research on drug harm:
--LinkRemoved--
Pretty straight forward.
Here's another one:
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/122/ ... ullve4.jpg
Heroin is, indeed, considered the most destructive, with cocaine close behind. Alcohol is considered more harmful than any of the other drugs being discussed.
--LinkRemoved--
Pretty straight forward.
Here's another one:
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/122/ ... ullve4.jpg
Heroin is, indeed, considered the most destructive, with cocaine close behind. Alcohol is considered more harmful than any of the other drugs being discussed.
- somewhatwayward
- Posts: 1442
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:10 pm
Re: Pot smokers in law school
^
what is the source for that chart, and how did they operationalize physical harm, social harm, etc?
there's some stuff that is being hidden by the way they categorized the drugs. for example, they presumably collapsed crack and cocaine into one category (they have the same active ingredient), but crack ends up causing a lot more social harm and has a higher risk of dependence than cocaine HCl (assuming the cocaine is not smoked or injected but possibly even then). this harm is mitigated by averaging that social harm/risk of dependence with the social harm/risk of dependence of sporadic cocaine use among the millions of college kids and yuppies.
likewise, i'm assuming methamphetamine falls under the amphetamine category, but that leads to a drastic understatement of its risk as well. methamphetamine causes pretty severe damage to the dopamine system, and its risk of dependence and negative social consequences are well known. however, when you average those with the much-less-extreme risks/effects of high school/college kids, soccer moms, professionals, etc abusing amphetamine (ie, adderall), the fact that methamphetamine is a very harmful drug is not properly represented.
when i was talking about 'worst' drug, i was referring to the worst drug pharmacologically (ie, what causes the most physical damage when administered regularly in its pure form), essentially, what is the worst drug in a social vaccuum? (i used to study pharmacology) ultimately, the effects of the drug in its social context are what matters for making policy, etc, of course.
it's just that when people who binge drink regularly are, like, 'OH NOEZ it's teh heroin!!!!!!!' it is potentially a little hypocritical. i would argue that binge drinking over time is harder on the body than using opiates, possibly heroin, regularly over time. that argument could certainly be contended, but my point is that damage from alcohol and damage from heroin are not as different as people assume.
what is the source for that chart, and how did they operationalize physical harm, social harm, etc?
there's some stuff that is being hidden by the way they categorized the drugs. for example, they presumably collapsed crack and cocaine into one category (they have the same active ingredient), but crack ends up causing a lot more social harm and has a higher risk of dependence than cocaine HCl (assuming the cocaine is not smoked or injected but possibly even then). this harm is mitigated by averaging that social harm/risk of dependence with the social harm/risk of dependence of sporadic cocaine use among the millions of college kids and yuppies.
likewise, i'm assuming methamphetamine falls under the amphetamine category, but that leads to a drastic understatement of its risk as well. methamphetamine causes pretty severe damage to the dopamine system, and its risk of dependence and negative social consequences are well known. however, when you average those with the much-less-extreme risks/effects of high school/college kids, soccer moms, professionals, etc abusing amphetamine (ie, adderall), the fact that methamphetamine is a very harmful drug is not properly represented.
when i was talking about 'worst' drug, i was referring to the worst drug pharmacologically (ie, what causes the most physical damage when administered regularly in its pure form), essentially, what is the worst drug in a social vaccuum? (i used to study pharmacology) ultimately, the effects of the drug in its social context are what matters for making policy, etc, of course.
it's just that when people who binge drink regularly are, like, 'OH NOEZ it's teh heroin!!!!!!!' it is potentially a little hypocritical. i would argue that binge drinking over time is harder on the body than using opiates, possibly heroin, regularly over time. that argument could certainly be contended, but my point is that damage from alcohol and damage from heroin are not as different as people assume.
- bilbobaggins
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:41 pm
Re: Pot smokers in law school
They definitely collapse crack and cocaine and meth.somewhatwayward wrote:^
what is the source for that chart, and how did they operationalize physical harm, social harm, etc?
there's some stuff that is being hidden by the way they categorized the drugs. for example, they presumably collapsed crack and cocaine into one category (they have the same active ingredient), but crack ends up causing a lot more social harm and has a higher risk of dependence than cocaine HCl (assuming the cocaine is not smoked or injected but possibly even then). this harm is mitigated by averaging that social harm/risk of dependence with the social harm/risk of dependence of sporadic cocaine use among the millions of college kids and yuppies.
likewise, i'm assuming methamphetamine falls under the amphetamine category, but that leads to a drastic understatement of its risk as well. methamphetamine causes pretty severe damage to the dopamine system, and its risk of dependence and negative social consequences are well known. however, when you average those with the much-less-extreme risks/effects of high school/college kids, soccer moms, professionals, etc abusing amphetamine (ie, adderall), the fact that methamphetamine is a very harmful drug is not properly represented.
when i was talking about 'worst' drug, i was referring to the worst drug pharmacologically (ie, what causes the most physical damage when administered regularly in its pure form), essentially, what is the worst drug in a social vaccuum? (i used to study pharmacology) ultimately, the effects of the drug in its social context are what matters for making policy, etc, of course.
it's just that when people who binge drink regularly are, like, 'OH NOEZ it's teh heroin!!!!!!!' it is potentially a little hypocritical. i would argue that binge drinking over time is harder on the body than using opiates, possibly heroin, regularly over time. that argument could certainly be contended, but my point is that damage from alcohol and damage from heroin are not as different as people assume.
Heroin, if administered correctly, is definitely less dangerous physically than alcohol. But, you have to factor in the social harm. There are way more functioning alcoholics than heroin addicts.
Which is not to say that one can't be a functioning heroin addict.
-
- Posts: 1396
- Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:50 pm
Re: Pot smokers in law school
I have a friend who smoked pot daily and was #1 in his class first semester.
Surprisingly, federal judicial internships didn't drug test, neither do summer associate positions at large firms in town. Hmmm.
I do agree that if you get caught, you are fucked.
Surprisingly, federal judicial internships didn't drug test, neither do summer associate positions at large firms in town. Hmmm.
I do agree that if you get caught, you are fucked.
Last edited by NotMyRealName09 on Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1396
- Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:50 pm
Re: Pot smokers in law school
PigNipple wrote:"Smokin', snortin', shootin', suckin', tokin', poppin', droppin'. . ."
hehe, man I miss that guy
-
- Posts: 1396
- Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:50 pm
Re: Pot smokers in law school
Perhaps the point was that all of the "clean living" still doesn't guarantee you'll get the job over the doobie smoking surfer who was top 'o his class. Sometimes life is about stopping and enjoying the flowers instead of spending all our days being uptight douchebags who never once stopped to have fun. Life isn't just about the future, sometimes its about the moment.babaghanouj wrote:Please pass the mediocrity. You're right, we should just shit on our dreams. I mean, why set high standards for yourself?bilbobaggins wrote:The undercurrent of "pot makes school harder" in this thread just cracks me up.
Pot doesn't make you stupid.
Regular drinking is way worse for you than regular smoking.
A lot of these comments come from this weird, American place where we have this bizarre belief that there is some sort of 100% healthy standard and that we must optimize our lives in order to reach this standard. It's the sort of "oh shit I'll never take any risks because I might not get that $160k Skadden job and I'll have to settle for a V50 firm" that cracks me up and also makes me sad.
And yes, please pass the crack.
- twert
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 6:13 pm
Re: Pot smokers in law school
having done nearly all those drugs, i think whoever made this graph is really really wrong.bilbobaggins wrote:This chart compiled a bunch of research on drug harm:
--LinkRemoved--
Pretty straight forward.
Here's another one:
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/122/ ... ullve4.jpg
Heroin is, indeed, considered the most destructive, with cocaine close behind. Alcohol is considered more harmful than any of the other drugs being discussed.
- ToadGoDead
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:09 am
Re: Pot smokers in law school
why is ecstasy second ?saltoftheearth wrote:I agree. Ecstasy comes in at a close second.engineer wrote: Heroin is the worst drug ever.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:27 pm
Re: Pot smokers in law school
Frequent ecstasy use actually starts to like, rot your brain. They can get by normally in public but you could definitely tell they're not "all there". At least most people who smoke a lot of weed or even do a lot of blow. You see lots of people who do coke and then go to rehab and go on to live perfectly normal lives. You could never really do well in law school or as a lawyer if you abused ecstasy.
- youpiiz
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:01 am
Re: Pot smokers in law school
the near-perfect correlation between dependence and physical harm makes me skeptical.
-
- Posts: 958
- Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:19 pm
Re: Pot smokers in law school
what about?youpiiz wrote:the near-perfect correlation between dependence and physical harm makes me skeptical.
- youpiiz
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:01 am
Re: Pot smokers in law school
the credibility of that chart
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 958
- Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:19 pm
Re: Pot smokers in law school
That chart looks like a piece of shit some middle schooler made one hour after he learned how to make charts in excel
seriously...theres not even a title
seriously...theres not even a title
Last edited by Leeroy Jenkins on Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
- youpiiz
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:01 am
Re: Pot smokers in law school
you know, its not all about looks
-
- Posts: 958
- Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:19 pm
Re: Pot smokers in law school
NO U R WRONGyoupiiz wrote:you know, its not all about looks
- youpiiz
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:01 am
Re: Pot smokers in law school
NO U R WRONGLeeroy Jenkins wrote: NO U R WRONG
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 958
- Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:19 pm
Re: Pot smokers in law school
whatev, the chart clearly supports the suggestion that you should start using marijuana as a way to ween yourself off tobaccoyoupiiz wrote:NO U R WRONGLeeroy Jenkins wrote: NO U R WRONG
- AR75
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:59 pm
Re: Pot smokers in law school
At this point in time, this thread has a STRONG finish. Well played.
-
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:08 pm
Re: Pot smokers in law school
So well said. I can clearly picture the seeds of such simple mindedness being planted around a boring dinner table. Drugs = bad. Alcohol = bad. Sex = bad. Bla bla02082010 wrote:Not at all. Who wants a self-righteous lecturer on a message board? Same thing with the girl who said "OMG YOU GOT A DUI I HOPE YOU NEVER GET INTO LAW SCHOOL YOU ARE SATAN AND DESERVE TO DIE" to some guy. I mean, don't agree with people's life choices but stfu about your opinion that has to be right because you and your parents think it is.awesomepossum wrote:SoftBoiledLife wrote:To the 30-post fellow who decided to troll the thread: Stop, or I'll ban you.
seriously?
overreaction much?
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login