Just want to know if anyone has any intelligent opinions about this matter. I really don't know.

no doubt alcohol.

Their both equally dangerous in my view. Both have their different effects on people and some same. I will list each here:

 

Different

 

Alcohol: Not as dangerous first time, different chemicals, causes liver and gastro problems, comes in varying levels available (Ex. 40-proof, 60-proof), easily available.

 

Marijuana: Dangerous all the time, different chemicals, cancer in the mouth, throat, tongue, continual loss of focus and remembrance problems.

 

 

Same

 

Each are highly addictive and dangerous. Big problems in the US concerning usage.

 

 

 

These are just a few of the effects.

I'm not addicted to either. I'm just wondering what kills more brain cells per usage.

Each are highly addictive and dangerous. Big problems in the US concerning usage.

 

Thats just flat out not true in the sense people like to make out. Its no more addictive than constantly being on the internet. Its NOWHERE NEAR as addictive as nicotine.

 

 

By far alcohol is more dangerous than pot.

 

1. Def. more addictive. Being a pothead is a way of life. The dont go to AA meetings nor do they need to.

 

2. There is a major slippery slope affect that alcohol has. You can end up with alohol poisoning. The worst thing that can happen to you if you smoke too much weed is you choke on a potato chip after eating the 5th bag.

 

3. Ive never heard of a pothead allowing pot to channel his emotions. There are a lot of people who drink in this country and they do so to deal with emotional pain of something in their life. Potheads are almost always not smoking to kill their emotional pain.

 

Im sure there is more. I drink but I wont pretend that it is less dangerous.

 

 

Here are the facts. Pot is not nearly as addictive as it is portrayed by the moral police. People who do pot dont act out in a way or have their senses altered dangerously any more than what happens to you when you drink. Pot has been given a terrible name in our society and it is ridiculous. What I do in my own home is my own choice and not that of Jerry Falwell or Laura Bush. I used to rail against it and believe every misconception that was put out there. Then I learned the truth.

 

Sorianofan, I get the impression you dont like government spending right? Well let me tell you what I know for a fact the biggest waste of money is. The drug war on pot. Its ridiculous. Its like trying to get the salt out of the ocean with a teaspoon. Its harmless, it is no worse than alcohol, people are going to do it no matter what and they arent like crack addicts, and yet we funnel so much money into it year in and year out. Alternativley we could legalize it and destroy the defecit.

 

This debate is simple. If you argue pot should stay illegal, you have to show how it is clearly more addictive than alcohol or cigs and how it alters your facalties more than alcohol or "other such activites." :thumbup But if you think cigs and alcohol should be illegal also, then I dont know what to say.

 

Dont believe everything you hear. There is a lot of hype coming from a lot of people.

without a doubt Alcohol is more dangerous ... u can operate a vehicle while on pot, the same cannot be said about alcohol.

 

plus, alcohol can lead to liver cancer and other things.

 

the only thing that pot does is make you a little slow ... which is no big deal.

 

 

:rasta

but what kills more braincells? I'm guessing pot does.

yeah im pretty sure ... i dont think it kills braincells but it disrupts the connections between them ... which equals loss of memory

Each are highly addictive and dangerous. Big problems in the US concerning usage.

 

Thats just flat out not true in the sense people like to make out. Its no more addictive than constantly being on the internet. Its NOWHERE NEAR as addictive as nicotine.

 

 

By far alcohol is more dangerous than pot.

 

1. Def. more addictive. Being a pothead is a way of life. The dont go to AA meetings nor do they need to.

 

2. There is a major slippery slope affect that alcohol has. You can end up with alohol poisoning. The worst thing that can happen to you if you smoke too much weed is you choke on a potato chip after eating the 5th bag.

 

3. Ive never heard of a pothead allowing pot to channel his emotions. There are a lot of people who drink in this country and they do so to deal with emotional pain of something in their life. Potheads are almost always not smoking to kill their emotional pain.

 

Im sure there is more. I drink but I wont pretend that it is less dangerous.

 

 

Here are the facts. Pot is not nearly as addictive as it is portrayed by the moral police. People who do pot dont act out in a way or have their senses altered dangerously any more than what happens to you when you drink. Pot has been given a terrible name in our society and it is ridiculous. What I do in my own home is my own choice and not that of Jerry Falwell or Laura Bush. I used to rail against it and believe every misconception that was put out there. Then I learned the truth.

 

Sorianofan, I get the impression you dont like government spending right? Well let me tell you what I know for a fact the biggest waste of money is. The drug war on pot. Its ridiculous. Its like trying to get the salt out of the ocean with a teaspoon. Its harmless, it is no worse than alcohol, people are going to do it no matter what and they arent like crack addicts, and yet we funnel so much money into it year in and year out. Alternativley we could legalize it and destroy the defecit.

 

This debate is simple. If you argue pot should stay illegal, you have to show how it is clearly more addictive than alcohol or cigs and how it alters your facalties more than alcohol or "other such activites." :thumbup But if you think cigs and alcohol should be illegal also, then I dont know what to say.

 

Dont believe everything you hear. There is a lot of hype coming from a lot of people.I don't really have a huge problem with pot, but I do with your arguement.

 

 

1)The abuse of any substance is directly the result of both the user's physical, psycological and EMOTIONAL dependancy. Saying that people don't rely on pot to alter their emotive state is like saying people don't smoke pot to get high. Being high is an aleration of the normative state emotionally, among other things. So, yes, people smoke to "channel" or alter their emotions.

 

2) Pot is as addictive as alcohol. Compare the "casual" pot smoker with the "social" drinker. There are not nearly as many pot smokers out there who smoke once or twice a year, whereas there are millions of people who have a drink or two every year.

 

3) Yes, pot does dangerously alter your senses. Or are you going to tell me that you drive better when you are high?

 

4) Smoking pot is not a moral issue. I can't stand it when people say it's "their right" to do what they want in theiri own homes when it comes to this, as if smoking pot is something that is exempt from the common sense dictums that society enforces via laws.

 

5) Most importantly, please do not use alcohol use/abuse as a justification to legalize pot. Alcoholism and the irresponsible use of alcohol is a horrible problem in this country, but that doesn't make the legalization of pot a legitimate issue. They are unrelated. Fact is, if you legalized pot, you'd have the same rampant problems with it's usage (driving accidents, lost productivity, health issues, etc)that you now have with alcohol. The only reason you don't have these problems now isn't because pot smokers are somehow more responsible in their usage, it's just because pot isn't anywhere near as available as alcohol.

 

In other words, don't go saying "it's no worse than alcohol, " because it would be if it were legal.

 

And don't say "people will do it no matter what," because the country is full of people who don't use it only because of its' lack of widespread availability.

 

And as far as taxing pot and "destroying the deficit", how exactley are you going to pay for the trillions in lost production and the burdens of a society trying to shoulder the huge decline in health if it were legal?

 

Anyway, I argue that pot should stay illegal, and no, I don't have to show you how it is worse than cigs or alcohol. Because cigs and alcohol are legal doesn't make them good, nor does it prove that pot should be legal too.

1)The abuse of any substance is directly the result of both the user's physical, psycological and EMOTIONAL dependancy. Saying that people don't rely on pot to alter their emotive state is like saying people don't smoke pot to get high. Being high is an aleration of the normative state emotionally, among other things. So, yes, people smoke to "channel" or alter their emotions.

Youre mixing up altering ones mental state for enjoyment with altering ones emotions. Yes a lot of people drink to have more fun and make them less mentally rigid and hence more enjoyable. People do the same thing with pot since it tends to make them more giddy and feel light on air.

 

But as a depressants, alcohol has a direct effect on one's emotions. It alters the rate of chemicals which actually effect ones emotion. It falls in the same category as other depressants such as valium. This is a scientific classification and not my own. There are strong links between alcohol abuse and severe depression since the more chronic your alcohol abuse the less likely you deal with self esteem issues and allow them to get worse. There are also links between those who suffer from despression and increased alcohol use. The essential thrust being they do this to kill their worries.

 

But pot only is done to affect ones mental state. It is classisifed as a hallucinogens since it alters neural impulses but does not have an effect on other emotional chemicals. That's why it isnt classified as a deppressant. Thats why its classified as a hallucinogen. Now if people intently want to experience those hallucinations, it doesnt come in any way as a consequence of their emotional state, whether depressed or killing depression. Rather they do it because they ENJOY the hallucination. Now yes, you are techincally correct in stating enjoyment is an emotion but so is going to a baseball game. We do these things to make ourselves enjoy but that doesnt mean they have long term emotional affects. A hallucinagen does not have major emotional effects the way a depressant does. Its an experience that the pot smoker enjoys. It isnt any other alteration that they desire.

 

2) Pot is as addictive as alcohol. Compare the "casual" pot smoker with the "social" drinker. There are not nearly as many pot smokers out there who smoke once or twice a year, whereas there are millions of people who have a drink or two every year.

 

Im sorry but thats a very convenient way of proving an assertion. There is no social stigma with drinking so people expose themselves to it for short term events. But your average American rarely is every comes across pot so it isnt like they have the opportunity to do it once or twice a year. So you essentially thrust an argument of addiction assuming that everyone will have had the opportunity to even try pot. The mere presence of fewer people who try it only a few times a year is a result of your convenient sample size. It doesnt work.

 

In reality, social drinkers or casual pot smokers probably wont become addicted. But there is a large enough population of pot users in this country. Larger than cocaine use and smaller than alcohol consumption. The proper measure of addiction is percentage of casual or social users who have to seek out treatment for their use. Ive volunteered in a drug rehab center we never, ever, to my knowledge, got someone who came in there saying they were addicted to pot. Nor have I ever met anyone for whom it was obvious pot use was a problem. Yet Ive seen numerous people who cant stop drinking no matter how hard they try.

 

But this isnt to say I dont think pot users are not mentally addicted. They want to do it more the same way a person who loves to eat choclate is mentally addicted to choclate. Its not that dangerous though.

 

3) Yes, pot does dangerously alter your senses. Or are you going to tell me that you drive better when you are high?

 

Ill paste my sentence and bold the relevant portions that you neglected yet misconstrued as claim that pot has no senses altering effect.

 

People who do pot dont act out in a way or have their senses altered dangerously any more than what happens to you when you drink.

 

 

4) Smoking pot is not a moral issue. I can't stand it when people say it's "their right" to do what they want in theiri own homes when it comes to this, as if smoking pot is something that is exempt from the common sense dictums that society enforces via laws.

 

5) Most importantly, please do not use alcohol use/abuse as a justification to legalize pot. Alcoholism and the irresponsible use of alcohol is a horrible problem in this country, but that doesn't make the legalization of pot a legitimate issue. They are unrelated. Fact is, if you legalized pot, you'd have the same rampant problems with it's usage (driving accidents, lost productivity, health issues, etc)that you now have with alcohol. The only reason you don't have these problems now isn't because pot smokers are somehow more responsible in their usage, it's just because pot isn't anywhere near as available as alcohol.

 

It is a moral issue. What right do you have to demand to dictate what one person does to his body is wrong but what another person does to their body is right? You cant be naive enough to actually believe all laws society creates are based on common sense. It was illegal in the south for a black man and a whiet women to get married. This was a blatant intrusion on the basic right that we have not to have our lives regulated by arbitrary notions of what is right and what is wrong. Im sorry but that is a right in this country. The police power of the state is justified to protect the well being where a clear threat exists. Where there is larger harm. If a black person and white person getting married was repugnent to you but caused no harm to society, you have no right to impose on their basic tenants because you just dont like it. Yet its the same "common sense dictums which society enforces via its laws" which you seem to allow to justify such a basic useless and idiotic invasion. Lets not talk about stupid laws.

 

Yet we need only look to these laws to see how society feels about certain items and their danger. For society, alcohol consumption is not the danger you say it is. You may have your reasons but if it was such a dangerous item, wouldnt the average person in this country clearly see its danger and either stop its use or call for it to be illegal? Your views are generally in the minority on the dangers of alcohol. The reason there is no uproar is because we in this nation have weighed the social fun we have with alcohol with its dangers and have deemed it legal. Whether or not its right or wrong is a different issue, though I tend to agree with the majority on this(howeverI wont justify that claim by pointing to its be legal. Rather I can appreciate the role alcohol plays in our modern world and positivley balance it with the dangers).

 

Yet my point which you missed is that it is hypocritical of general society to balance the dangers of alcohol and cigeratte with their positive attributes and deem them more than the negative attributes when that same balancing test comes out in pots favor. Its not even a question of abuse because we humans are stupid and we abuse everything. Its a question of allowing a person to do what he wants and the only way we regulate that behavior is if his activity poses such a threat to society. We've encroached on his enjoyment of pot use yet have stopped the machine short with his neighbor and we have no basis for this and no justification for this. Yet we pretend that one is ok and the other is not. That my friend is the definition of hypocrisy.

 

You may think that all things considered equal, we have to stop it somewhere but that isnt the argument presented. Most people really do in their minds feel that alcohol use in our society is fine but pot use isnt. Thats just doesnt make sense. Its a basic misconception and somehting people just cant see.

 

Ill concede though. You have addressed the only avenue by which pot use can be considered bad and thats the slippery slope of things which affect us. In your mind they pose a clear danger. I flat out disagree. If we allow that which we choose to be in our body to be made illegal by the arbitrary wrongs we see from them then we are heading down another slippery slope. You can only impose your only personal views of right and wrong so much. I swear to god we are heading down the direction of becoming a society with "dont do this" and "dont do that" signs posted everywhere.

 

 

And as far as taxing pot and "destroying the deficit", how exactley are you going to pay for the trillions in lost production and the burdens of a society trying to shoulder the huge decline in health if it were legal?

 

You act as if pot were legalized tommorow, people would be banging down the stores to get to it. Some of the smartest, hardest working people I know do pot. Laziness is our own decision and not that of pot. It wont be a crisis and I imagine the stigma attached to cigerrrate use would carry over. People's moral views on a whole in this nation keep them from putting smoke in their lungs and that should be enough to prevent widespread chaos. The average pot smoker isnt trying to spread to the world the benefits of pot use. He just doesnt want to be thrown in jail for it.

 

Yet even if we keep it illegal, do you seriously think it has been worth the enormity of money, the rescources and the lost lives to battle so hard against something you can only show presents a marginal danger and danger in the future?

Bottom line is both are dangerous if abuse.

Everything in moderation.

 

What's more dangerous? I'd say alcohol.

 

I've never driven stoned, but drunk driving is an awfully big issue. You don't hear of many accidents regarding someone driving while stoned...

 

Alcohol certainly is more dangerous in a single episode as well.

 

As far as long term.... neither one does you any good if you become addicted, but I'd still guess alcohol tends to be worse. I disagree that you can't become addicted to pot though, although perhaps it's more an issue of becoming addicted to the lifestyle or something... I have friends that started as a recreational thing once in a blue moon, & grew to a twice-a-day habit. Fine line between a habit and an addiction sometimes I guess.

 

I think marijuana gets blown out of proportion certainly, but it can still be abused, as can pretty much anything.

 

I tend to agree it should be decriminalized, but I share some of Fillet's reservations. It's definitely something that should be debated more openly though, at this point a politician is considered a borderline nutcase if he backs legalization.

 

Marijuana for medical use should be legalized everywhere before long... that should help to lessen the negative stigma it carries. Then at least we can have open debates about it.

But pot only is done to affect ones mental state. It is classisifed as a hallucinogens since it alters neural impulses but does not have an effect on other emotional chemicals.

Ummm, no. The AMA does not classify Pot, nor any of it's proprietary chemicals (THC, et. al.) as hallucigens.

 

You act as if pot were legalized tommorow, people would be banging down the stores to get to it. Some of the smartest, hardest working people I know do pot. Laziness is our own decision and not that of pot.

 

Once again, the AMA: "Complications of chronic use include time distortion, manifested by tardiness; staying up late; unusual mealtimes and missed appointments; lack of motivation, manifested by poor hygiene; loss of interest in work and other activities; inadequate diet, resulting in malnutrition; problems in interpersonal relationships and unrealistic perceptions of one's job performance." Sounds like symptoms of laziness to me.

 

It is a moral issue. What right do you have to demand to dictate what one person does to his body is wrong but what another person does to their body is right? You cant be naive enough to actually believe all laws society creates are based on common sense. It was illegal in the south for a black man and a whiet women to get married. This was a blatant intrusion on the basic right that we have not to have our lives regulated by arbitrary notions of what is right and what is wrong. Im sorry but that is a right in this country. The police power of the state is justified to protect the well being where a clear threat exists. Where there is larger harm. If a black person and white person getting married was repugnent to you but caused no harm to society, you have no right to impose on their basic tenants because you just dont like it. Yet its the same "common sense dictums which society enforces via its laws" which you seem to allow to justify such a basic useless and idiotic invasion. Lets not talk about stupid laws.

Sorry, but you comparing pot to interacial marriage is preposturous. What does the effects of marrying interacially (if any) have to do with you smoking pot and increasing your chances of A) costing society money with increased health care B) Your inability to remain a productive member of society or C) Threatening the safety of others by using a drug illegally?

 

And society does have the right ot tell you what you can or can't do to your body. Or are you saying that Heroin should be legal because it's a heroin user's right to do whatever he wants to his body? Or any other drug, for that matter?

 

Ironically enough, Alcohol is the exact reason why pot shouldn't be legal. If you need evidence as to how pot would dramitally and detrimetally affect society just look at what alcohol has done. And if you think the legalization of pot and your whole "right to do what you want to you body" arguement doesn't lend itself to a subsequent arguement to legalize other drugs, look at your own arguement and how you use alcohol as an example of how pot should be legalized.

 

Sorry, it's just as dangerous as alcohol. Luckily enough our society didn't legalize it before we knew exaclty how harmful it could be and that we didn't make the same mistake with it as we did with alcohol.

 

Once you legalize pot you won't ever be able to repeal it's legality, just like alcohol and the debacle of prohibition. It's fine the way it is now, lightly punished and mostly ignored, but stigmatized enough to keep it from becoming rampant in society.

Anything is dangerous if not taken in moderation (even food can make you fat and kill you).

 

My own personal opinion on the matter is that alchohol is way worse than pot. I've driven while high, the 'cause of which was I went about five miles below the speed limit the whole time.

 

I've never blacked out because of pot, so there's that. Generally weed just made me want to sit around and NOT do stuff. I felt safer smoking weed, too, because weed, unlike alchohol, isn't as social a drug (because of it's illegalality) and you have to pretty much stay in your house to use it. Alchohol, you generally go somehwere else to drink and then have to put up with the consequences of driving home.

 

I say it's interesting that pot grows naturally up on the earth so therefore it seems unnatural to ban it. But, I don't really care either way. If they legalize it more idiots will abuse it, like alchohol, and we'll find just as many problems with pot as alchohol EVENTUALLY. I just don't really care about this issue either way...

 

I also haven't had pot in two years and during my most active time of doing it, I worked for the airforce (at Wright Patterson airforce base) doing it to test the effects of weed and alchohol on reflexes (basically meaning we played video games, then got drunk or stoned and then played the games some more to test our reflexes some; then we all drove home. Not bad for ten dollars and hour and three hours of work). And by the way, there are safer ways of taking pot than smoking it, so the smoke part shouldn't be nearly the risk it is. The airforce has THC tablets, or papers. Simple as pie you put it on your tongue and it was like getting high five minutes later. No worry about the smoke messing with your lungs.

Probably the coolest job on earth.

Fish fillet, perhaps where you and I differ is what role government should play in our lives. There are so many things which one can see as having a negative effect on our society, of resulting in bad health when abused, of decreasing productivity. For example:

 

Junk Food: How do you think the AMA feels about junk food? Im sure they have their results of what happens when it is chronically abused. People become obese and we are a fatter society than we have ever been. Do you know how much more productive our society would be if we ate healthy? How many work hours are lost because of people who are lethargic or unhealthy? Yet should our government regulate the inflow of junk food into out throats?

 

Sexual explicitness: Ranging from pornography to sexual desires. When this is chronically abused it results in a very defective society too. It also leads to social problems(relationships etc) and at worse people who engage in chronic pornography use might turn fantasy into something they shouldnt. Yet should the government deem what sexual desire is appropriate?

 

I think government can only play a certain role in our lives. You can make the negative social affect argument for anything. Perhaps you wish these things also to be regulated but cant acheive that so you will stop the inflow of new evils. Well thats your view but personally I feel youve expanded the role of government so immensley and so narrowly defined social costs to allow for such regulations. Perhaps in the future when you can only eat or iingest what is healthy, when you can only act in a manner than causes absoltuley no harm to society, and you can only wear what incites no negative effect, you will regret so easily justifying such a role for government. At what point do we take responsiblity for our own actions and the result instead of asking the government to dictate right and wrong.

 

Thats my point with interracial relationships. Its called pointing out a principle by analogy.

 

 

And society does have the right ot tell you what you can or can't do to your body. Or are you saying that Heroin should be legal because it's a heroin user's right to do whatever he wants to his body? Or any other drug, for that matter?

 

If tommorow the government said no eating potato chips. Why? Because its bad for you and since we dont let you ingest something that has an enourmously larger addiction rate than pot and potato chips, that clearly and palpably destroys lives, and has a physical hold on you whereas pot iand potato chips are more not as severe we can justify it. You see since the government doesnt let people kill each other, they can also not let people have wrestling matches, and since they dont let people have sex with 5 year olds, they can also prevents people from having premarital sex. Comparison is weak.

 

 

On another note, I probably should have addressed this earlier. The federal governments regulation of pot is an even worse example of whats going on. The federal government should never regulate the public welfare. It has no police powers. To claim it does goes againt the Constitution.

 

It should be a matter left to each and every state if they feel the same way as fish fillet and desire to make pot illegal. That way if they want to use it for medicine in California, then its their choice.

 

But when the federal government prevents states from doing so, it has essentially gone beyond the scope of its powers. For something that is so debateable in its danger, we have allow the federal government to become something it never should be. So dont tell me the fears of social regulations is non existent.

If tommorow the government said no eating potato chips. Why? Because its bad for you and since we dont let you ingest something that has an enourmously larger addiction rate than pot and potato chips, that clearly and palpably destroys lives, and has a physical hold on you whereas pot iand potato chips are more not as severe we can justify it. You see since the government doesnt let people kill each other, they can also not let people have wrestling matches, and since they dont let people have sex with 5 year olds, they can also prevents people from having premarital sex. Comparison is weak.

its bad for you if you eat potato chips and only that. point is, too much of ANYTHING is bad.

A bad argument for legalizing I heard, "The negative effects on people that know whoever..."

 

You know what? How about the negative effects of being around depressed people, or obese people, or bad drivers...we cannot start making arguments to make things illegal because of indirect side effects. When it comes down to it, drugs are bad for society BECAUSE they are so damn expensive so people create a havoc to get them.

 

I'm sorry, but if heroin became legal, I don't see everyone shooting up all of the sudden. It takes a certain kind of clique and person to do hard drugs, so making them legal isn't going to make a drug explosion.

 

When it comes down to it people what want drugs gets drugs. Making them illegal only increases crime and hurts all of us. You want an indirect side effect? That's just about as bad as it gets.

 

All of this goes with my libertarian philosophy. The government has no damn right to tell us how to live. Their job is to make our lives more convenient, that's why we pay them...FOR US. Are we forgetting why we have governments in the first place? For us. It is for the people. If the people want drugs, give them drugs. If you personally don't want them, then don't take them. It is a matter of personal freedom. Increased crime rate and cost are secondary.

If the people want drugs, give them drugs. If you personally don't want them, then don't take them. It is a matter of personal freedom. Increased crime rate and cost are secondary.

 

 

*applauds*

 

:bandit

A bad argument for legalizing I heard, "The negative effects on people that know whoever..."

 

You know what? How about the negative effects of being around depressed people, or obese people, or bad drivers...we cannot start making arguments to make things illegal because of indirect side effects. When it comes down to it, are bad for society BECAUSE they are so damn expensive so people create a havoc to get them.

 

I'm sorry, but if became legal, I don't see everyone up all of the sudden. It takes a certain kind of clique and person to do hard , so making them legal isn't going to make a explosion.

 

When it comes down to it people what want gets . Making them illegal only increases crime and hurts all of us. You want an indirect side effect? That's just about as bad as it gets.

 

All of this goes with my libertarian philosophy. The government has no damn right to tell us how to live. Their job is to make our lives more convenient, that's why we pay them...FOR US. Are we forgetting why we have governments in the first place? For us. It is for the people. If the people want , give them . If you personally don't want them, then don't take them. It is a matter of personal freedom. Increased crime rate and cost are secondary.

So do you suggest the government rule with the majority opinion on the issue?

No, I suggest the government rule with my opinion!

 

I think it is a matter of morality not to impose such rules on people that restrict their freedom. What's next, making sex illegal because of the harm done?

what harm does sex cause? i hope you mean rape right?

what harm does sex cause? i hope you mean rape right?

I'm assuming he means STD's.

what harm does cause? i hope you mean right?

I'm assuming he means STD's.

correct