Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: Tarheel on March 19, 2009, 04:43:59 PM
-
It looks like The ONE's administration is lifting the restrictions on (and blatant harassment of) innocent 'medicinal marijuana' dealers that were put in place by the evil, ultra-right-wing, super-religious, mega-Republican Bush administration (said with vitriolic hatred and disdain)! Big surprise that there's few details on the 'changed' policy. That seems to be par for the course with this crowd. Of course they're still going to prosecute those dealers who falsely claim to be medicinal marijuana distributors. How do you tell the difference?!
I guess that The ONE and AG Holder DID inhale!
Excerpt from the Times Online, any emphasis is my own:
Obama Administration to Stop Raids on Medical Marijuana Dispensers
By DAVID JOHNSTON and NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: March 18, 2009
WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Wednesday outlined a shift in the enforcement of federal drug laws, saying the administration would effectively end the Bush administration’s frequent raids on distributors of medical marijuana.
Speaking with reporters, Mr. Holder provided few specifics but said the Justice Department’s enforcement policy would now be restricted to traffickers who falsely masqueraded as medical dispensaries and “use medical marijuana laws as a shield.”
In the Bush administration, federal agents raided medical marijuana distributors that violated federal statutes even if the dispensaries appeared to be complying with state laws. The raids produced a flood of complaints, particularly in California, which in 1996 became the first state to legalize marijuana sales to people with doctors’ prescriptions.
Graham Boyd, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union drug law project, said Mr. Holder’s remarks created a reasonable balance between conflicting state and federal laws and “seem to finally end the policy war over medical marijuana.” He said officials in California and the 12 other states that have authorized the use of medical marijuana had hesitated to adopt regulations to carry out their laws because of uncertainty created by the Bush administration.
Mr. Holder said the new approach was consistent with statements made by President Obama in the campaign
...
I can't wait until they legalize LSD and crack for medicinal purposes. What a happier world this will be...
Here's the rest of this rubbish:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/us/19holder.html?bl&ex=1237608000&en=ed559a97685bac75&ei=5087%0A (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/us/19holder.html?bl&ex=1237608000&en=ed559a97685bac75&ei=5087%0A)
-
The way this administration is fucking my beloved country, we are all going to need heavy drugs. Lord knows smoking a joint will soon be cheaper than smoking a cigar.
-
This is a good start, but I would still prefer it be legalized and regulated similar to alcohol and tobacco.
-
This is a good start, but I would still prefer it be legalized and regulated similar to alcohol and tobacco.
They'll tax the hell out of it too should it possibly be removed from Schedule I of the Controlled Substance law (along with LSD, Heroin, and an assortment of other 'cocktails'). I've always had a preference for narcotic alkaloids myself...and fine tobacco.
Well, the way FedGov is spending money they'll need some new revenue streams, eh?
-
They'll tax the hell out of it too should it possibly be removed from Schedule I of the Controlled Substance law (along with LSD, Heroin, and an assortment of other 'cocktails'). I've always had a preference for narcotic alkaloids myself...and fine tobacco.
Well, the way FedGov is spending money they'll need some new revenue streams, eh?
If it means that I won't lose my job for using an illegal substance, and I won't get arrested for carrying it on my person, then tax the hell out of it for all I care.
-
I don't give a shit what you losers smoke as long as you stay off the road. It's none of my business what you put in your mouth as long as it doesn't affect society. And don't publish any photos either. <insert neil and bob emoticon here>
-
I don't give a shit what you losers smoke as long as you stay off the road. It's none of my business what you put in your mouth as long as it doesn't affect society. And don't publish any photos either. <insert neil and bob emoticon here>
I do smoke occasionally while making my 45 minute plus commute in the mornings and evenings...but only fine adult tobacco products.
-
I do smoke occasionally while making my 45 minute plus commute in the mornings and evenings...but only fine adult tobacco products poles.
Fixed.
-
Of course they're still going to prosecute those dealers who falsely claim to be medicinal marijuana distributors. How do you tell the difference?!
Um, the ones that don't have a license?
I can't wait until they legalize LSD and crack for medicinal purposes. What a happier world this will be...
The slippery slope fallacy. You (and most super-Republicans) are a huge fan of that one. Go to Amsterdam and try to use LSD or crack and see how seriously they take their drug laws when pertaining to those substances.
I'm personally not nearly the smoker that Ogre is. I never tried it once until I vacationed in Amsterdam AFTER college (and that'd be like going to Italy and not trying the pasta).
The fact is marijuana is the LEAST harmful of the narcotics, alcohol included. And I love me some alcohol. FAR prefer it to marijuana. When have you ever heard of someone OD'ing on marijuana? You haven't, because you can't. Alcohol, on the other hand...And CCTAU brings up a good point. How many deaths have you heard of from smoking weed and driving, vs. drinking and driving?
How many bar fights have broken out due to alcoholic rages? Meanwhile, when people smoke pot they sit on the couch watching cartoons. Potheads are a happy peaceful people, that's for sure.
They'll tax the hell out of it too should it possibly be removed from Schedule I of the Controlled Substance law (along with LSD, Heroin, and an assortment of other 'cocktails'). I've always had a preference for narcotic alkaloids myself...and fine tobacco.
Well, the way FedGov is spending money they'll need some new revenue streams, eh?
I know you meant that sarcastically, but you're absolutely right. I'd much rather fund the government this way, than fund crime which is what we're doing now. We tried that with prohibition. Didn't work out so well.
-
We tried that with prohibition. Didn't work out so well.
Worked out fine for some. We knew how to produce our own. Fuck the rest of them.
-
Not only would regulating and taxing it make for a new stream of cash flowing in, but also think about the millions (if not billions) of dollars spent on people in prison solely for distribution or possession of MJ. With the massive gubment growth bill that Obama put through, it sure wouldn't hurt to find a place to cut spending, and this is one the left would actually embrace.
-
Not only would regulating and taxing it make for a new stream of cash flowing in, but also think about the millions (if not billions) of dollars spent on people in prison solely for distribution or possession of MJ. With the massive gubment growth bill that Obama put through, it sure wouldn't hurt to find a place to cut spending, and this is one the left would actually embrace.
Exactly. Make room for the rapists and murderers. I'm quite alright with the potheads "roaming the streets". As I said, they'll more likely be roaming their living room.
-
Um, the ones that don't have a license?
The slippery slope fallacy. You (and most super-Republicans) are a huge fan of that one. Go to Amsterdam and try to use LSD or crack and see how seriously they take their drug laws when pertaining to those substances.
I'm personally not nearly the smoker that Ogre is. I never tried it once until I vacationed in Amsterdam AFTER college (and that'd be like going to Italy and not trying the pasta).
The fact is marijuana is the LEAST harmful of the narcotics, alcohol included. And I love me some alcohol. FAR prefer it to marijuana. When have you ever heard of someone OD'ing on marijuana? You haven't, because you can't. Alcohol, on the other hand...And CCTAU brings up a good point. How many deaths have you heard of from smoking weed and driving, vs. drinking and driving?
How many bar fights have broken out due to alcoholic rages? Meanwhile, when people smoke pot they sit on the couch watching cartoons. Potheads are a happy peaceful people, that's for sure.I know you meant that sarcastically, but you're absolutely right. I'd much rather fund the government this way, than fund crime which is what we're doing now. We tried that with prohibition. Didn't work out so well.
Didn't know (nor do I care) about the 'license' to distribute 'medicinal' MJ. Ridiculous...but I do know of a couple of folk who use it for 'pain' because it's 'more natural'. There are much better natural narcotics that are legally obtained from a real doctor that are used with professional supervision.
I always get a kick out of reading the circuitous rationalizations that you guys use for legalizing this substance.
So I suppose that alcohol should be listed as a Schedule I controlled substance and MJ should be legalized...brilliant.
-
Didn't know (nor do I care) about the 'license' to distribute 'medicinal' MJ. Ridiculous...but I do know of a couple of folk who use it for 'pain' because it's 'more natural'. There are much better natural narcotics that are legally obtained from a real doctor that are used with professional supervision.
I always get a kick out of reading the circuitous rationalizations that you guys use for legalizing this substance.
So I suppose that alcohol should be listed as a Schedule I controlled substance and MJ should be legalized...brilliant.
I'd like to understand your hatred for the legalization of this drug. Those that partake know that it is quite possibly one of the most harmless drugs you can put into your system. Sure, you're fucking up your lungs/throat/mouth with each puff, but how is this any different than the adult tobacco products that you and I enjoy? As Chizad stated, it's impossible to OD and die from this substance. Brain cells? Yeah, they take a hit to, but it's no different of a hit then when you have a few whiskey drinks.
So this is a good start. California, as much as you hate to hear it, has paved the way and shown how this industry brings millions back into the economy. Now, their governor has fucked up the usage of this money and the State has huge budget deficits, but that instance is separate from the money pot brings into the state. There, they are able to peacefully distribute marijuana for those that need it, and profit from it! It's a form of capitalism, like it or not.
If it can bring more money into the economy and free up room in jail for the real criminals, then why not be all for it?
-
I'd like to understand your hatred for the legalization of this drug. Those that partake know that it is quite possibly one of the most harmless drugs you can put into your system. Sure, you're fucking up your lungs/throat/mouth with each puff, but how is this any different than the adult tobacco products that you and I enjoy? As Chizad stated, it's impossible to OD and die from this substance. Brain cells? Yeah, they take a hit to, but it's no different of a hit then when you have a few whiskey drinks.
So this is a good start. California, as much as you hate to hear it, has paved the way and shown how this industry brings millions back into the economy. Now, their governor has fucked up the usage of this money and the State has huge budget deficits, but that instance is separate from the money pot brings into the state. There, they are able to peacefully distribute marijuana for those that need it, and profit from it! It's a form of capitalism, like it or not.
If it can bring more money into the economy and free up room in jail for the real criminals, then why not be all for it?
We can go round and round on this subject but I do prescribe to it being a gateway drug. Y'all libertarians disagree. There's plenty of testimonial, analogical, and statistical evidence to the otherwise.
There are obvious negative effects of the ingestion of THC in humans and test mammals alike. I've heard all of the arguments for it being OK and you aren't going to convince me otherwise; that is that it's really 'good' for you.
The only positive attribute that it may have is effects against pain but that evidence is sketchy, arguable, and mostly anecdotal from what I've read...as I wrote earlier if that's what one needs then there are better narcotics that can be obtained from and monitored by a real doctor.
The simplest scientific fact is that THC is produced in plants as a self-defense against herbivores...why would I want to ingest this chemical for any reason especially for recreation?
-
We can go round and round on this subject but I do prescribe to it being a gateway drug. Y'all libertarians disagree. There's plenty of testimonial, analogical, and statistical evidence to the otherwise.
There are obvious negative effects of the ingestion of THC in humans and test mammals alike. I've heard all of the arguments for it being OK and you aren't going to convince me otherwise; that is that it's really 'good' for you.
The only positive attribute that it may have is effects against pain but that evidence is sketchy, arguable, and mostly anecdotal from what I've read...as I wrote earlier if that's what one needs then there are better narcotics that can be obtained from and monitored by a real doctor.
The simplest scientific fact is that THC is produced in plants as a self-defense against herbivores...why would I want to ingest this chemical for any reason especially for recreation?
I will never say it's good for you. And I'm not a libertarian. And it's fun to go round and round.
A gateway drug...yes, when used by humans who have no self control over their addictions. Sex with my wife is good, but I'm able to control my desire to have sex with other women because I have self control. and believe me, I want to have sex with other women. Each and every instance of marijuana being a gateway drug is from a human who can either consciously or, perhaps, genetically, not control themselves. There are just as many folks who use marijuana, and only marijuana, as there are those who have it become a gateway drug for themselves.
As for the last question...why would you put nicotine into your body? It's an alkaloid found in plants, and it's been scientifically proven to be one of the top addictive drugs in our country. But you still do it, for recreation. There's no difference, save for that nicotine is WAY more addictive than marijuana.
-
I will never say it's good for you. And I'm not a libertarian. And it's fun to go round and round.
A gateway drug...yes, when used by humans who have no self control over their addictions. Sex with my wife is good, but I'm able to control my desire to have sex with other women because I have self control. and believe me, I want to have sex with other women. Each and every instance of marijuana being a gateway drug is from a human who can either consciously or, perhaps, genetically, not control themselves. There are just as many folks who use marijuana, and only marijuana, as there are those who have it become a gateway drug for themselves.
As for the last question...why would you put nicotine into your body? It's an alkaloid found in plants, and it's been scientifically proven to be one of the top addictive drugs in our country. But you still do it, for recreation. There's no difference, save for that nicotine is WAY more addictive than marijuana.
Yes, indeed, it's fun to go round and round.
I think that you are right about nicotine (and caffeine and alcohol) for that matter. That citation is, quite frankly, an argument in favor of all of them being gateway drugs (including MJ). Perhaps it starts with one of these then progresses on to other 'safe' drugs from there. Study after study has shown that the use of these drugs leads to the use of other drugs and substances. It really boils down to nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, and MJ not really being 'safe' at all so an argument by comparison is pointless. Sometimes I wonder why all of them are not MORE tightly controlled and regulated but then I realize that would fuck up FedGov's revenue stream wouldn't it?
Yes, at some point self-control does have to take over but its against our basest instincts in this regard I think; once you get going on one you start to need more and more. I know you and others will cringe when I use this term but it really is a 'slippery slope'. Not implying anything but I'm happy for you if you were able to 'stop' graduating yourself. I too have been able to do that by not 'graduating' to MJ at all even though its 'safer' than caffeine as many pot-heads would argue.
You asked earlier why I have a 'hatred', as you call it, of this substance. Anecdotal as it is, I've seen first hand what it can do to people's lives in the lives of two people in my family (one, of whom, is no longer with us); which proves to me first-hand what scientific studies have shown about the effects of MJ. So don't even start to evangelize to me how 'safe' it is to use.
Well, anyway, on a happier note, to quote from a friend, 'I think we have a hippie infestation problem here in the X'.
-
Thanks for quoting what I said. Are you sharing it with the police? I will standby for commentary.
-
We can go round and round on this subject but I do prescribe to it being a gateway drug. Y'all libertarians disagree. There's plenty of testimonial, analogical, and statistical evidence to the otherwise.
There are obvious negative effects of the ingestion of THC in humans and test mammals alike. I've heard all of the arguments for it being OK and you aren't going to convince me otherwise; that is that it's really 'good' for you.
The only positive attribute that it may have is effects against pain but that evidence is sketchy, arguable, and mostly anecdotal from what I've read...as I wrote earlier if that's what one needs then there are better narcotics that can be obtained from and monitored by a real doctor.
The simplest scientific fact is that THC is produced in plants as a self-defense against herbivores...why would I want to ingest this chemical for any reason especially for recreation?
Gateway shmateway.
I am living proof that it is not a gateway drug. I dabbled with one other drug twice in my early post-college years, and those experiences were all I needed to let me know that I don't want to do anything harder than pot.
It is no more of a gateway drug than alcohol.
-
We can go round and round on this subject but I do prescribe to it being a gateway drug. Y'all libertarians disagree. There's plenty of testimonial, analogical, and statistical evidence to the otherwise.
Alcohol is a gateway drug. More people that moved to harder substances such as cocaine, etc. started with alcohol.
There are obvious negative effects of the ingestion of THC in humans and test mammals alike. I've heard all of the arguments for it being OK and you aren't going to convince me otherwise; that is that it's really 'good' for you.
No one's saying it's good for you. Better than alcohol or tobacco, perhaps.
The only positive attribute that it may have is effects against pain but that evidence is sketchy, arguable, and mostly anecdotal from what I've read...as I wrote earlier if that's what one needs then there are better narcotics that can be obtained from and monitored by a real doctor.
I can agree to an extent that marijuana for medicinal purposes is a bit sketchy. I think it should be legalized for whatever purposes. But as it stands in some states it IS legal for medicinal use, and that's a step in the right direction. I don't think I'd qualify, but I have extreme GERD, and Barrett's Esophagus, which is a precurser to cancer. For me personally, there's no doubt that marijuana would be better for me than alcohol. I still stick to alcohol, because at present moment, that substance won't get me fired.
The simplest scientific fact is that THC is produced in plants as a self-defense against herbivores...why would I want to ingest this chemical for any reason especially for recreation?
What do you think fermentation is?
-
Alcohol is a gateway drug. More people that moved to harder substances such as cocaine, etc. started with alcohol.
No one's saying it's good for you. Better than alcohol or tobacco, perhaps.
I can agree to an extent that marijuana for medicinal purposes is a bit sketchy. I think it should be legalized for whatever purposes. But as it stands in some states it IS legal for medicinal use, and that's a step in the right direction. I don't think I'd qualify, but I have extreme GERD, and Barrett's Esophagus, which is a precurser to cancer. For me personally, there's no doubt that marijuana would be better for me than alcohol. I still stick to alcohol, because at present moment, that substance won't get me fired.
What do you think fermentation is?
Sorry for the late response. I got tied up with a client phone call at work. It won't happen again.
-
Fuck you bunch of hippies. Leave my bourbon out of it.
Bottom line. I don't give a shit what you do as long as it does not interfere with my freedoms of choice.
-
Thanks for quoting what I said. Are you sharing it with the police? I will standby for commentary.
I suck at teh ebays sometimes. My bad.
EDIT:
For those of you from Tuscaloosa my response is posted in the lengthy 'edit' of my quote of Thrilla above.
And, yes, the proper authorities have been notified.
-
Gateway shmateway.
I am living proof that it is not a gateway drug. I dabbled with one other drug twice in my early post-college years, and those experiences were all I needed to let me know that I don't want to do anything harder than pot.
It is no more of a gateway drug than alcohol.
I'm glad that you were able to stop. But you are wrong; it is a gateway drug. By you're own admission you are living proof that it is. What lead you to 'dabble'? Was it alcohol? Nicotine? Caffeine? Do tell.
-
Alcohol is a gateway drug. More people that moved to harder substances such as cocaine, etc. started with alcohol.
...
Not sure that I'd disagree with you about alcohol being a gateway drug. You are right. I think it's bullshit to say that more people moved from alcohol to cocaine than anything else such as MJ.
...
No one's saying it's good for you. Better than alcohol or tobacco, perhaps.
...
Now that is bullshit.
...
I can agree to an extent that marijuana for medicinal purposes is a bit sketchy. I think it should be legalized for whatever purposes. But as it stands in some states it IS legal for medicinal use, and that's a step in the right direction. I don't think I'd qualify, but I have extreme GERD, and Barrett's Esophagus, which is a precurser to cancer. For me personally, there's no doubt that marijuana would be better for me than alcohol. I still stick to alcohol, because at present moment, that substance won't get me fired.
...
I think you'll have no trouble finding a real doctor who can prescribe a PROVEN drug to relieve what ails you. If my employer even smelled alcohol on my breath I'd probably be fired. We've certainly fired others because of it.
...
What do you think fermentation is?
I think that it enhances the prevalent THC chemical that already exists in the raw plant in various degrees depending on which part you prefer to ferment and then smoke (or make tea from).
-
Not sure that I'd disagree with you about alcohol being a gateway drug. You are right. I think it's bullshit to say that more people moved from alcohol to cocaine than anything else such as MJ.
So where's the gateway? Why the distinction between alcohol and pot. Alcohol more likely comes BEFORE marijuana, so if anything THAT'S the gateway drug. I think the whole "gateway drug" thing is bullshit to begin with. The slippery slope argument is a fallacy, nothing more. And by the way, I actually do know people who are more likely to do cocaine than pot. Alcohol and cocaine are more similar in that they are both social drugs.
Now that is bullshit.
How so? Dispute what Thrilla already pointed out.
I think you'll have no trouble finding a real doctor who can prescribe a PROVEN drug to relieve what ails you. If my employer even smelled alcohol on my breath I'd probably be fired. We've certainly fired others because of it.
I wouldn't use marijuana to cure my GERD. I am on Nexium to relieve what ails me. What I was saying was, if I gotta get my mind alteration on (and I do), it is certainly more healthy in my situation to take a puff than to take a drink. Neither are good for me, no argument there, but that's not what I'm suggesting.
I think that it enhances the prevalent THC chemical that already exists in the raw plant in various degrees depending on which part you prefer to ferment and then smoke (or make tea from).
I'm talking about the fermentation of yeast and bacteria, or grapes.
-
I'm glad that you were able to stop. But you are wrong; it is a gateway drug. By you're own admission you are living proof that it is. What lead you to 'dabble'? Was it alcohol? Nicotine? Caffeine? Do tell.
Actually, I was not smoking MJ either time I tried coke. I was drinking heavily once and stone-cold sober the other. I tried it twice and hated it - drunk or sober. If anything, alcohol was the 'gateway' that allowed me to try it the first time.
-
Yes, indeed, it's fun to go round and round.
It really boils down to nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, and MJ not really being 'safe' at all so an argument by comparison is pointless. Sometimes I wonder why all of them are not MORE tightly controlled and regulated but then I realize that would fuck up FedGov's revenue stream wouldn't it?
On this, we no longer go round and round. But I do wish our government would allow for the additional revenue stream. Tax the shit outta things that are considered vices, and ease taxes on necessecities.
You asked earlier why I have a 'hatred', as you call it, of this substance. Anecdotal as it is, I've seen first hand what it can do to people's lives in the lives of two people in my family (one, of whom, is no longer with us); which proves to me first-hand what scientific studies have shown about the effects of MJ. So don't even start to evangelize to me how 'safe' it is to use.
Duly noted. And it saddens me to hear it.
Well, anyway, on a happier note, to quote from a friend, 'I think we have a hippie infestation problem here in the X'.
Fuck you bunch of hippies. Leave my bourbon out of it.
I'm not cutting my hair, dude.
I think everything else on this matter has been laid out there, no? Now, I'm going to enjoy this high.
-
So where's the gateway? Why the distinction between alcohol and pot. Alcohol more likely comes BEFORE marijuana, so if anything THAT'S the gateway drug. I think the whole "gateway drug" thing is bullshit to begin with. The slippery slope argument is a fallacy, nothing more. And by the way, I actually do know people who are more likely to do cocaine than pot. Alcohol and cocaine are more similar in that they are both social drugs.
I think that I have successfully argued that the gateway is alcohol and/or tobacco. But they are indeed mild by comparison to MJ and by your own admission (to use that vernacular again) above one leads to another and another and another. Yes, I'm sure that alcohol and tobacco both more than likely come BEFORE MJ probably do in most cases but I'd also say that most people are able to stop (by themselves or by intervention) before making it worse and stepping into the realm of illicit drugs.
There has to be threshold somewhere. There's enough evidence to show that it's fine right where it is.
Legalized 'social drug' use will be the further ruin of this nation. Someone stated earlier that some folk are able to find the self-control in drug use. That's fine but if it's legalized how can it be determined in people as to who can control themselves in using it and who can't? Hell, as you stated, thousands die from accidents caused by DUI every year. How many more accidents will be caused if pot use is legalized? Just as an example; we can't keep people from drinking and driving...tell me how that's going to get any better by adding pot to the equation?
...
How so? Dispute what Thrilla already pointed out.
...
I'm not saying that alcohol and tobacco use can't be abused. Intemperate use of both can cause some truly severe health issues at the very least. Here's but one of thousands of articles about the effects of marijuana use; just reading this one article tells me it's far worse than alcohol or tobacco:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html)
Admittedly that's based on 'habitual' use but I'd say a habit by any other word (e.g. 'recreation') smells of shit all the same.
But habeas corpus...if you know otherwise; I'm afraid that you aren't going to change my thinking on this though unless you can talk the good Lord himself into coming down and telling me different (You might want to reference my original post to Thrilla as to why).
...
I wouldn't use marijuana to cure my GERD. I am on Nexium to relieve what ails me. What I was saying was, if I gotta get my mind alteration on (and I do), it is certainly more healthy in my situation to take a puff than to take a drink. Neither are good for me, no argument there, but that's not what I'm suggesting.
That is my point.
(And, for the sake of full disclosure, I admit to smoking cigars and consuming alcohol too.)
...
I'm talking about the fermentation of yeast and bacteria, or grapes.
Understood.
Actually, I was not smoking MJ either time I tried coke. I was drinking heavily once and stone-cold sober the other. I tried it twice and hated it - drunk or sober. If anything, alcohol was the 'gateway' that allowed me to try it the first time.
Well, that's good, personal anecdotal evidence that alcohol CAN be a gateway to stronger drug use. I don't mean to sound patronizing but I'm glad you don't use anything worse. At least you were able to stop at some threshold; others aren't as fortunate.
As stated earlier I think it can be argued that MJ, alcohol, and tobacco can all be considered gateway drugs. Some people have the self control not to take it any further or to abuse it.
Also, as I said earlier, there has to be a threshold somewhere; and there's just too much evidence of the truly negative effects that MJ has on the human body and mind.
And I do sincerely apologize for sounding really patronizing in what I wrote to you in that previous post. I didn't mean it that way at all.
Fuck you bunch of hippies.
...
Amen!
-
Marijuana use can make you a worthless, unhealthy, lazy slob incapable of achieving anything in life.
Signed,
Michael Phelps
-
Marijuana use can make you a worthless, unhealthy, lazy slob incapable of achieving anything in life.
Signed,
Michael Phelps
I'm laughing at the irony.
Good post.
-
I'm so busy with work right now that I can only afford a drive-by posting on the topic... Sorry for that...
Anyone who believes that MJ is a "safe drug" is fuggin' nuts! Period!!! Yeah sure... You can't OD. Yeah sure... There may be minimal organ damage from its occasional use. Blah, blah, blah... You clowns are only arguing the blatantly obvious immediate affects of its use. There is one thing that you are failing to understand. There are serious longer term affects to the brain. You can research THC, hippocampus, learning, cognitive ability, memory, emotional response and motivational response for additional information, but the evidence of its adverse affects is far more conclusive than arguments for glow-bull warming, the safety of organic foods, the dangers of asbestos and lead-based paint.
My personal concern is the result of its legalization on the capability, capacity and mental stability of future generations. Studies have shown that those who have used between the ages of 14 to 24, when the brain is developing more advanced functions such as those mentioned above, suffer from more serious longer term affects. Basically, they're handicapping themselves. They might be able to hold down a job, but you’re not typically going to find them performing open-heart surgery, designing a spaceship or developing a new source of energy. In fact, you're probably won't even find them running companies, serving on corporate boards, or performing in the top 20% or our nation's producers. The damage caused by THC during those years of brain development is irreversible. In fact, any damage brought about by the occasional use of THC is irreversible regardless of age. It's just more pronounced in those who have "experimented" during those developmental years.
That's all that I really have on the topic. I really don't care what people do. The pro-liberty side of me suggests that I shouldn't care what you do as long as it doesn't affect me, but it will affect me if I recognize the bigger picture. While those dope-smoking slobs are under-achieving (having difficulty keeping their checkbook balanced or meeting the terms of the mortgage agreement and car loan), they're going to burden the rest of society.
Why handicap yourself? Alcohol doesn't do anything like that that unless you have a serious problem and drink to excess everyday, but anything in excess can become a problem.
-
That's all that I really have on the topic. I really don't care what people do. The pro-liberty side of me suggests that I shouldn't care what you do as long as it doesn't affect me, but it will affect me if I recognize the bigger picture. While those dope-smoking slobs are under-achieving (having difficulty keeping their checkbook balanced or meeting the terms of the mortgage agreement and car loan), they're going to burden the rest of society.
Why handicap yourself? Alcohol doesn't do anything like that that unless you have a serious problem and drink to excess everyday, but anything in excess can become a problem.
Or the dope-smoking slobs can marry a lawyer that can support their habits.
Edit: Actually, I make a pretty damn good living on my own. I have never missed a payment of any kind, and I am extremely productive at work. I realize it's easy to paint with a broad brush, but you have to realize that not every person who imbibes is a tie-dye shirt wearing, bike-riding, stinky filthy hippie. There are normal people who enjoy it WHILE contributing to society. For example, two of my best friends from college smoke every day, and both are in their last year of doctorate school. Neither has ever made a "B" in their life.
-
My personal concern is the result of its legalization on the capability, capacity and mental stability of future generations. Studies have shown that those who have used between the ages of 14 to 24, when the brain is developing more advanced functions such as those mentioned above, suffer from more serious longer term affects. Basically, they're handicapping themselves. They might be able to hold down a job, but you’re not typically going to find them performing open-heart surgery, designing a spaceship or developing a new source of energy. In fact, you're probably won't even find them running companies, serving on corporate boards, or performing in the top 20% or our nation's producers. The damage caused by THC during those years of brain development is irreversible. In fact, any damage brought about by the occasional use of THC is irreversible regardless of age. It's just more pronounced in those who have "experimented" during those developmental years.
First of all, this is a ridiculous stretch of a doomsday scenario you've presented. BUT if marijuana were actually legalized, you wouldn't be able to get it until you were 21, or AT LEAST 18 (at least 19 in Alabama). MORE kids are smoking marijuana now at a "developmental age" because they can't their hands on alcohol because they can't purchase it from the stores, and there's no (notable) black market for alcohol.
That's all that I really have on the topic. I really don't care what people do. The pro-liberty side of me suggests that I shouldn't care what you do as long as it doesn't affect me, but it will affect me if I recognize the bigger picture. While those dope-smoking slobs are under-achieving (having difficulty keeping their checkbook balanced or meeting the terms of the mortgage agreement and car loan), they're going to burden the rest of society.
Again, a ridiculous broad-brush statement. I'm not trying to out anyone, but every law school student I know smokes marijuana FAR FAR FAR more regularly than I ever would. In fact, outside the Amsterdam experience I mentioned before, EVERY TIME I HAVE EVER SMOKED MARIJUANA has been with a law school student. The next two biggest pot heads I know? Doing their med school residency. One of which was the one who was so adamant about going to Amsterdam in the first place on our Eurpean trip. The next biggest behind them would be a 24 year old that makes close to 6 figures doing IT for an accounting firm. I mentioned Michael Phelps in jest, but seriously, are you going to argue that he's a worthless good-for-nothing? It is well documented that George W. Bush did plenty of toking (as well as use cocaine for that matter). Is he a burnout hippie?
Your generalizations, as most are, are based on ignorance.
Why handicap yourself? Alcohol doesn't do anything like that that unless you have a serious problem and drink to excess everyday, but anything in excess can become a problem.
And how is this different from alcohol?
-
First of all, this is a ridiculous stretch of a doomsday scenario you've presented. BUT if marijuana were actually legalized, you wouldn't be able to get it until you were 21, or AT LEAST 18 (at least 19 in Alabama). MORE kids are smoking marijuana now at a "developmental age" because they can't their hands on alcohol because they can't purchase it from the stores, and there's no (notable) black market for alcohol.
Ridiculous stretch? You must be operating with limited cognitive ability... How's that working out for you?
At 16, I found it much easier to get my hands on a bottle of liquor or a 12-pack from Pushpop at the local Kwiki-Mart. In fact, I purchased my first 12-pack at the ripe old age of 14. Kids have been swiping bottles from mom and dad's liquor cabinets for years. It's easy, even today. Do you really think that kids have experimented or used more marijuana than alcohol?
Again, a ridiculous broad-brush statement. I'm not trying to out anyone, but every law school student I know smokes marijuana FAR FAR FAR more regularly than I ever would. In fact, outside the Amsterdam experience I mentioned before, EVERY TIME I HAVE EVER SMOKED MARIJUANA has been with a law school student.
Are you serious? If so, you're definitely operating with limited cognitive ability. You just shot down you're own argument. Do you really hold law students on that high of a pedestal? Why do you think our legal system is such a fucking joke? Do you think lawyers are considered our society's "greatest achievers"??? I'm sure that there are quite a few good ones out there, but seriously... :rofl:
The next two biggest pot heads I know? Doing their med school residency. One of which was the one who was so adamant about going to Amsterdam in the first place on our Eurpean trip.
Am I supposed to be impressed by more fucking kids? :taunt:
The next biggest behind them would be a 24 year old that makes close to 6 figures doing IT for an accounting firm.
Again? :taunt:
Is this stuff really supposed to impress me. You're throwing out young, dumb, punk kids as some sort of evidence. If any of these clowns are the pot users that you claim, let's see where they end up in another 15-25 years. Will they be as capable as their peers? Will they be performing on par? Will they be as accomplished? Will they be as wise? This is typically where they'll fall short.
I mentioned Michael Phelps in jest, but seriously, are you going to argue that he's a worthless good-for-nothing?
Again... He's another fucking kid... And, he's a pretty dumb one at that. :rofl:
1) When he speaks, he's obviously not the smartest kid on the bus.
2) He smoked dope.
3) He allowed his picture to be taken, while he was smoking dope.
Not the sharpest guy... And, those lost endorsements don't seem to be working out too well for him either.
It is well documented that George W. Bush did plenty of toking (as well as use cocaine for that matter). Is he a burnout hippie?
While he may have made it to the Presidency, he was not the smartest or wisest we've had in the office. He also ran a few companies into the ground. He's not helping your argument...
Your generalizations, as most are, are based on ignorance.
Actually, just the opposite...
http://www.uc.edu/News/NR.aspx?ID=9011 (http://www.uc.edu/News/NR.aspx?ID=9011)
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/brain-and-behavior/2008/06/02/the-brain-on-lots-of-marijuana.html (http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/brain-and-behavior/2008/06/02/the-brain-on-lots-of-marijuana.html)
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-DA-04-016.html (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-DA-04-016.html)
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080602/marijuana_effects_080602/20080602?hub=Health (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080602/marijuana_effects_080602/20080602?hub=Health)
http://www.javno.com/en-lifestyle/heavy-marijuana-use-shrinks-brain-parts---study_153088 (http://www.javno.com/en-lifestyle/heavy-marijuana-use-shrinks-brain-parts---study_153088)
http://medheadlines.com/2008/07/02/study-%E2%80%93-long-term-marijuana-use-toxic-to-the-brain/ (http://medheadlines.com/2008/07/02/study-%E2%80%93-long-term-marijuana-use-toxic-to-the-brain/)
Let's see if you do like the glow-bull whining alarmists and attack all of the sources and messengers as being biased or working for big oil/alcohol... Come on... You can do it...
Try giving the facts a chance. There are enough clowns out there supporting legalized MJ, so I'm not going to convince you either way. But, try to come to the table with something useful next time. Don't throw a bunch of young twirp pukes up as your role models and expect anyone to be swayed on this. There are studies on both sides of the argument; I just side with the one that lacks an agenda.
And how is this different from alcohol?
Two different results... Occasional alcohol use is harmless. MJ use does something much more fucking with your brain development and chemistry. Look, if you're 40 years old and holding your own, while toking on the occasional joint, I don't really give a shit. BUT, don't try to clear your petty, fragile, little conscience at society's expense, because that's what this is all about.
As for your childish "doomsday scenario" remarks...
- There was a time when income taxes didn't exist. Now, it's "doomsday scenario" realized with an income tax at the federal level, most states and several cities, and they didn't stop at just one. They have different types on income taxes... One for unemployment benefits... One for Medicare... And, more are coming!!!
- There was a time when nobody ever considered the possibility of a Social Security system. Now, it's "doomsday scenario" realized where we have a gubm'et run Ponzi scheme that's about to have more people collecting this entitlement than paying into it. Here come the baby-boomers.
- There was a time when nobody ever thought socialized healthcare for children would be possible. It’s "doomsday scenario" realized again with the new and "improved" S-CHIP bill that just extended healthcare coverage from the original $45k household income to “up-to” $87k household income.
- There was a time when nobody ever thought that smoking in public would be banned. Now, look at the fucking mess everywhere... Another "doomsday scenario" realized…
- There was a time when nobody thought that our gun rights would ever be challenged. That’s only a move typical of a tyrant like Hitler! Not only did we live through Klintoon and the Brady gun bills, they actually confiscated guns in New Orleans... Another "doomsday scenario" realized…
-
So if this was 1930 I'm sure you would have been arguing your case against alcohol before prohibition was repealed, right? Lord knows what it would do to our society if we allowed people to drink the devil's juice!
Each study you cited had "Heavy Use" or "Long-term" or some other variation of those in the title or first paragraph. Well no shit - I'm sure I can find plenty of articles on the heavy use of alcohol as it relates to an adolescent brain. I could, but I won't, because I'm a lazy pothead. Actually, I haven't smoked in a month, so technically I'm clean as a whistle right now, but that's neither here nor there.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not railing on alcohol here. Lord knows I love me some alcohol. I just don't get the moral soapbox speech with regards to pot.
-
I love lead paint chips.
-
Ridiculous stretch? You must be operating with limited cognitive ability... How's that working out for you?
Wow. This is why I don't spend much time in the political forums. It doesn't take long before an idiot makes an ignorant, myopic, ridiculous, argument based on nothing but their own generalizations, which themselves are based on nothing but what the agenda they support perpetuates. You can't argue with ignorance. But I'll try.
At 16, I found it much easier to get my hands on a bottle of liquor or a 12-pack from Pushpop at the local Kwiki-Mart. In fact, I purchased my first 12-pack at the ripe old age of 14. Kids have been swiping bottles from mom and dad's liquor cabinets for years. It's easy, even today. Do you really think that kids have experimented or used more marijuana than alcohol?
Yes. Things have changed since you grew up. I don't know if you're aware but you have to be 21 to buy alcohol now. Penalties for contributing to minors are serious. For high school kids it is FAR easier to find a 16 year old that grows pot in his room to sell it to you than it is to get someone to go the the store to pick up a 6 pack for you.
Are you serious? If so, you're definitely operating with limited cognitive ability. You just shot down you're own argument. Do you really hold law students on that high of a pedestal? Why do you think our legal system is such a fucking joke? Do you think lawyers are considered our society's "greatest achievers"??? I'm sure that there are quite a few good ones out there, but seriously... :rofl:
Who taught you that term? Cognitive ability? Just because someone used it to burn your argument before doesn't mean that it is a trump card to just pull out when you have nothing else to say.
When I originally typed that, I KNEW you would say something about what scum of the earth lawyers are. You are a joke. Yeah, nothing but burnouts and unmotivated losers make it through law school. It's basically where the special ed class and in school suspension kids end up ten years down the road, right?
And I'm not talking about 2 or 3 I know. I'm talking about at least 90% of the 40+ law school students I know.
Am I supposed to be impressed by more fucking kids? :taunt:
Again? :taunt:
God forbid, my kid ends up one of those no good doctors. Man, I tell you, I will make damn sure to tell my kids every night, "Whatever you do, don't experiment with drugs. You don't want to end up in a dead-end job working as a doctor or lawyer."
Is this stuff really supposed to impress me. You're throwing out young, dumb, punk kids as some sort of evidence. If any of these clowns are the pot users that you claim, let's see where they end up in another 15-25 years. Will they be as capable as their peers? Will they be performing on par? Will they be as accomplished? Will they be as wise? This is typically where they'll fall short.
I'd be willing to bet the house that they will be. I'm basing this on the fact that I actually know the people I speak of, and knowing how intelligent and successful they are already at such a young age. I'm sorry I'm 26, so my peers too are in their 20s. This cripples my argument how? The law school and med school students I know today, will be doctors and lawyers in the next couple of years. And there's nothing to indicate with a year left of med school or a semester left of law school that any of them are anywhere near any kind of danger of flunking out, as I guess you're assuming. I don't know what you do for a living that's so high and mighty, but I do know that you probably make less than the 24 year old "clown", I'm fairly certain that you did when you were his age, and I also know that most people in the real world consider doctors and lawyers to be esteemed occupations. It's safe to say most would probably rank it above whatever it is you do, in terms of success and the drive and motivation it takes to get there. And no, I'm not trying to turn this into an elitist "You don't make as much as so-and-so" argument, but you're the one lumping everyone who smokes pot into this dregs of society, absolute bottom tier of the caste system.
Again... He's another fucking kid... And, he's a pretty dumb one at that. :rofl:
1) When he speaks, he's obviously not the smartest kid on the bus.
2) He smoked dope.
3) He allowed his picture to be taken, while he was smoking dope.
Not the sharpest guy... And, those lost endorsements don't seem to be working out too well for him either.
How many gold medals have you won for the United States? More than anyone ever in the entire 3000 year old history of the Olympics, or zero? You'd think this would be the Jesse Owens to your inferiority argument, Hitler, but I guess you're more closed minded than Adolf himself. I tell you, that marijuana just makes you a completely worthless drain on society, incapable of reaching goals or having ambition. A perfect model of an unhealthy lifestyle.While he may have made it to the Presidency, he was not the smartest or wisest we've had in the office. He also ran a few companies into the ground. He's not helping your argument...
He's an idiot when it's convenient to your argument. A misunderstood genius when THAT fits your argument.
What about Arnold Schwarzenegger?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKAURFR2a2E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKAURFR2a2E)
Let me guess, he's not a REAL Republican either. No kind of success story there...
How about another Republican Governor, Michael Bloomberg? Look up his response when New York Magazine asked him if he ever smoked pot. "You bet I did. And I enjoyed it!" Eighth richest man in the world worth over 20 billion dollars...He must have acquired that from sucking dick in back alleyways, since we all know that's all that a pot smoker can amount to.
Ted Turner funds the Kentucky Hemp Museum...sure would hate to have his billions...Oh yeah, I forgot he's a communist because he founded CNN. Damn, when you can so quickly shoot my arguments because they're on your 10 billion page black list, I guess I just have no credibility.
I'm sure Sir Richard Branson had to make your list too. You know, the guy who built the Virgin Empire from the ground up. I know he has to be on your blacklist because he's petitioned for the legalization of pot and even stated that if it were legal, he’d sell it. In your mind, that makes him a filthy hippie with no credibility, I'm sure.
It goes without saying that every musician ever is on your list. Nah, you strike me more of a Toby Kieth fan. Oh, damn, guess you've never heard "Smoke Weed With Willie".
More into the "pure" country artists, probably then right. Like Hank Williams Sr. & Jr., Johnny Cash, David Allan Coe, Waylon Jennings, Merle Haggard, Willie Nelson...damn damn damn!!!
Are we done here?
Actually, just the opposite...
http://www.uc.edu/News/NR.aspx?ID=9011 (http://www.uc.edu/News/NR.aspx?ID=9011)
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/brain-and-behavior/2008/06/02/the-brain-on-lots-of-marijuana.html (http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/brain-and-behavior/2008/06/02/the-brain-on-lots-of-marijuana.html)
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-DA-04-016.html (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-DA-04-016.html)
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080602/marijuana_effects_080602/20080602?hub=Health (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080602/marijuana_effects_080602/20080602?hub=Health)
http://www.javno.com/en-lifestyle/heavy-marijuana-use-shrinks-brain-parts---study_153088 (http://www.javno.com/en-lifestyle/heavy-marijuana-use-shrinks-brain-parts---study_153088)
http://medheadlines.com/2008/07/02/study-%E2%80%93-long-term-marijuana-use-toxic-to-the-brain/ (http://medheadlines.com/2008/07/02/study-%E2%80%93-long-term-marijuana-use-toxic-to-the-brain/)
Let's see if you do like the glow-bull whining alarmists and attack all of the sources and messengers as being biased or working for big oil/alcohol... Come on... You can do it...
Ogre already pointed out what should be painfully obvious, so I won't repeat it here.
Try giving the facts a chance. There are enough clowns out there supporting legalized MJ, so I'm not going to convince you either way. But, try to come to the table with something useful next time. Don't throw a bunch of young twirp pukes up as your role models and expect anyone to be swayed on this. There are studies on both sides of the argument; I just side with the one that lacks an agenda.
This is laughable. The one that lacks an agenda? Seriously? Damn science and it's agenda. Damn actual facts besides the made up statistics you can parrot from the same inventors of this farcical war on drugs.
The rest of your argument is either nonsensical filler or a response to something I stated in which you completely missed the point I was making, so none of it is worth wasting any more time responding to.
And after all this, keep in mind that I can count on one hand the number of times I've smoked pot, so don't paint me into your hippie devoid of all credibility brush.
-
Prosecuting people for smoking and pssessing marijuana is one of the stupidest fucking things this country does. It is a monumental waste of money and is similar to pissing in the wind. If you have 5% of the population being indifferent to a certain law it can not be effectively policed. See marijuana and speeding for examples.
We could clean out a large portion of our prisons and make them places where we keep the real criminals more cost effectively.
You can say what you want, the only reason pot is illegal is beacause of bible fucking thumpers and the lumber industry. It is not nearly as destructive of a drug on the body as alcohol. It isn't nearly as disabling as alcohol.
-
Prosecuting people for smoking and pssessing marijuana is one of the stupidest fucking things this country does. It is a monumental waste of money and is similar to pissing in the wind. If you have 5% of the population being indifferent to a certain law it can not be effectively policed. See marijuana and speeding for examples.
We could clean out a large portion of our prisons and make them places where we keep the real criminals more cost effectively.
You can say what you want, the only reason pot is illegal is beacause of bible fucking thumpers and the lumber industry. It is not nearly as destructive of a drug on the body as alcohol. It isn't nearly as disabling as alcohol.
I'm sure you meant 50%, not 5.
Statistics show that 42% of Americans ADMIT to smoking marijuana despite its illegality.
Maybe 5% are as adamantly supportive of the law as GarMan and TarHeel...
-
I'm sure you meant 50%, not 5.
Statistics show that 42% of Americans ADMIT to smoking marijuana despite its illegality.
Maybe 5% are as adamantly supportive of the law as GarMan and TarHeel...
No, I meant 5%. That is what a friend told me they had read in a study one time. It might be a stretch but it is believable to me. It's not far off at least.
42% have admitted that they smoked at some time but only a small portion of those are regular smokers. Somewhere around 5-10% of the population I would guess, perhaps more.
Heroin is a better example. A much smaller portion of the population uses heroin and it can't be effectively policed. I mean if your having trouble getting your heroin just go get arrested. You won't have trouble finding some in any federal pen. in America. The vast majority of Americans feel heroin should be illegal and only a small portion of people use it, yet it can't be effectively policed. The shit is everywhere, especially in big cities.
-
I guess I don't understand your definition of "indifferent"
If you have 5% of the population being indifferent to a certain law it can not be effectively policed. See marijuana and speeding for examples.
So 5% of the population are indifferent to the law, meaning 95% of people abide faithfully? 95% of people strictly obey the speed limit? 95% of people have never smoked pot?
I'm not being a dick, I just really don't understand the argument you're trying to make.
-
So if this was 1930 I'm sure you would have been arguing your case against alcohol before prohibition was repealed, right? Lord knows what it would do to our society if we allowed people to drink the devil's juice!
I don't know. It would depend on the science and available information at the time. That was also back in the day when smoking tobacco was supposed to be good for you. As for what we know now, the influence of THC on brain development is far more serious than the affects of alcohol.
Each study you cited had "Heavy Use" or "Long-term" or some other variation of those in the title or first paragraph. Well no shit - I'm sure I can find plenty of articles on the heavy use of alcohol as it relates to an adolescent brain. I could, but I won't, because I'm a lazy pothead.
Everything that I've seen and read convinces me that it's a dumb move.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not railing on alcohol here. Lord knows I love me some alcohol. I just don't get the moral soapbox speech with regards to pot.
I'm not on a moral soapbox. Nothing I said would even suggest that.
-
Everything that I've seen and read convinces me that it's a dumb move.
Your argument is predicated on the idea that the SAME amount of consumption of marijuana is as dangerous as the SAME amount of consumption of alcohol, and that's just not true.
As far as your whole lazy worthless dregs of society stereotype, I'm giving you credit and assuming you're talking about people who smoke several times a day. How productive are people who stay drunk all day? I have a friend whose dad is a major alcoholic. He's not curing cancer.
Which brings up TarHeel's argument I let slide earlier, about how you'd get fired if you showed up with alcohol on your breath. No shit! No one's advocating showing up to work high. But if you take a piss test for your job and it shows up that you consumed alcohol in the last month, no one gives a shit.
-
I guess I don't understand your definition of "indifferent"
So 5% of the population are indifferent to the law, meaning 95% of people abide faithfully? 95% of people strictly obey the speed limit? 95% of people have never smoked pot?
I'm not being a dick, I just really don't understand the argument you're trying to make.
Obviously. :poke: The word indifferent is confusing. Let's say that 5% indulge or disregard a certain law.
5% is the threshold. If 5% or more of the population disregard a certain law then it can not be effectively policed. MJ and speeding are just two of the easiest examples to pull out of your hat. 5 % of the population is roughly 15 million people or so. The police and law enforcement establishment can't keep up with it when the numbers run that high.
I doubt that 5% of the population uses heroin yet it is very arguable that it can't be effectively policed either. I mean it is hugely poular in big cities from what I hear.
Murder and rape are the other end of the spectrum. Most people would turn in their neighbor in a heartbeat if they knew he/she had done either one of those. Murder is much more enforceable because less than 5% of the public feel it is an okay thing to do and therefore choose not to murder people.
I'm not saying 5 % is the true threshold but I have heard it is and it wouldn't surprise me if it were accurate. The true number can't be far off.
Whatever the case, we are pissing away billions per year on keeping MJ illegal and to me it is a complete waste of funds. I smoked for years and the worst effect it had on me was in the pocketbook due to the fact it was illegal. We could de-criminalize it, save billions on prosecution and incarceration costs per year, and make millions or billions per year on taxing it. Most people I know who smoke (d) would gladly pay 20$ for a cigarette like pack of smokes, of which the vast majority could be for taxes.
Hell, I would probably find ways to get by with just eating it if it were legal. Some gonja on an empty stomach can be quite powerful.
-
I think a major bone of contention here is with the perception of how society views those that are caught with illegal drugs, especially marijuana.
You see, those folks that are irresponsible and, once again, have no self-control that smoke the ganja and get arrested or sucked into other illicit, more damaging drugs will get caught. These folks are not looking out for themselves, but looking out for their habit. When they get caught, they're typically trashy, hippie-ish, or low-lifes. This is what we see typically see as a "by-product" of pot usage. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the data used in the arguments by anti-marijuana propenents takes these idiots and their cognitive abilities into question.
But, there are just as many, if not more, that smoke it and stay under the radar. Like Chizzad and Ogre, I know my fair share of users that are professionally and personally successful. I consider myself to be one of these people. These people smoke, but don't get caught, and enjoy their lives with marijuana integrated into it similarly to how people integrate alcohol and tobacco into their lives. But you typically don't group these people into users, because they must stay under the radar due to these dumb-ass arcane illegal drug laws that we're debating.
The data for these demographics is skewed, and so is perception.
Now take this shit from me, it's burning my fingers...
(http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o58/lilshadowsgv/Joint.png)
-
Your argument is predicated on the idea that the SAME amount of consumption of marijuana is as dangerous as the SAME amount of consumption of alcohol, and that's just not true.
I hate it when I have to drink my pot
Which brings up TarHeel's argument I let slide earlier, about how you'd get fired if you showed up with alcohol on your breath. No shit! No one's advocating showing up to work high. But if you take a piss test for your job and it shows up that you consumed alcohol in the last month, no one gives a shit.
No one give a shit because at this point it is legal to buy and consume.
-
I hate it when I have to drink my pot
No one give a shit because at this point it is legal to buy and consume.
I'm glad you edited that. I was very confused.
-
Obviously. :poke: The word indifferent is confusing. Let's say that 5% indulge or disregard a certain law.
5% is the threshold. If 5% or more of the population disregard a certain law then it can not be effectively policed. MJ and speeding are just two of the easiest examples to pull out of your hat. 5 % of the population is roughly 15 million people or so. The police and law enforcement establishment can't keep up with it when the numbers run that high.
I doubt that 5% of the population uses heroin yet it is very arguable that it can't be effectively policed either. I mean it is hugely poular in big cities from what I hear.
Murder and rape are the other end of the spectrum. Most people would turn in their neighbor in a heartbeat if they knew he/she had done either one of those. Murder is much more enforceable because less than 5% of the public feel it is an okay thing to do and therefore choose not to murder people.
I'm not saying 5 % is the true threshold but I have heard it is and it wouldn't surprise me if it were accurate. The true number can't be far off.
Whatever the case, we are pissing away billions per year on keeping MJ illegal and to me it is a complete waste of funds. I smoked for years and the worst effect it had on me was in the pocketbook due to the fact it was illegal. We could de-criminalize it, save billions on prosecution and incarceration costs per year, and make millions or billions per year on taxing it. Most people I know who smoke (d) would gladly pay 20$ for a cigarette like pack of smokes, of which the vast majority could be for taxes.
Hell, I would probably find ways to get by with just eating it if it were legal. Some gonja on an empty stomach can be quite powerful.
We totally agree then. I really just didn't understand what you meant. You're saying that if 5% or more of the population is indifferent to a law, than it's not enforceable. I agree. I thought you were arguing that 95% of Americans ardently obide by the laws you mentioned.
No one give a shit because at this point it is legal to buy and consume.
Exactly my point.
-
Wow. This is why I don't spend much time in the political forums. It doesn't take long before an idiot makes an ignorant, myopic, ridiculous, argument based on nothing but their own generalizations, which themselves are based on nothing but what the agenda they support perpetuates. You can't argue with ignorance. But I'll try.
...
A holier-than-thou, libertarian pot-head. How's that fucking view from your tower of self-righteous, pseudo-intellectual superiority? Talk about myopic.
I guess you can't argue with ignorance.
THIS kind of statement is exactly why I'm not wasting any more of my valuable time arguing with you on this subject.
-
Wow. This is why I don't spend much time in the political forums. It doesn't take long before an idiot makes an ignorant, myopic, ridiculous, argument based on nothing but their own generalizations, which themselves are based on nothing but what the agenda they support perpetuates. You can't argue with ignorance. But I'll try.
Shouldn't you be a bridesmaid in some gay marriage today? Hey FUCKTARD, it's not ignorance. It's humorous sarcasm. Have fun with it. If you can't take the jabs, get the fuck out. Don't get so bitchy when someone throws a little mud on your shoes. I don't care to stroke your worthless feelings and emotions. This feminization of America's younger generations is driving me nuts!
Yes. Things have changed since you grew up. I don't know if you're aware but you have to be 21 to buy alcohol now. Penalties for contributing to minors are serious. For high school kids it is FAR easier to find a 16 year old that grows pot in his room to sell it to you than it is to get someone to go the the store to pick up a 6 pack for you.
Yes, the legal age was 21 when I was 16 too. So what? We still got our hands on it. Where's the study that shows more kids experiment with MJ than alcohol? You made the statement. Let's see some facts.
Who taught you that term? Cognitive ability? Just because someone used it to burn your argument before doesn't mean that it is a trump card to just pull out when you have nothing else to say.
Actually, I believe that I officially learned about it in my freshman psychology course in college. Plus, just about every scientific study that I've seen on MJ use mentions the ill affects on cognitive ability, but thanks for asking... :blink:
When I originally typed that, I KNEW you would say something about what scum of the earth lawyers are. You are a joke. Yeah, nothing but burnouts and unmotivated losers make it through law school. It's basically where the special ed class and in school suspension kids end up ten years down the road, right?
And I'm not talking about 2 or 3 I know. I'm talking about at least 90% of the 40+ law school students I know.
This is too easy... Next, you're going to throw out movie stars and musicians. In your shallow little feminized mind, these are the "great achievers" and "great contributors" to society. The joke's on you...
God forbid, my kid ends up one of those no good doctors. Man, I tell you, I will make damn sure to tell my kids every night, "Whatever you do, don't experiment with drugs. You don't want to end up in a dead-end job working as a doctor or lawyer."
God forbid, your seed produces a kid... If these are the types of "doctors and lawyers" that you want on your side... nevermind... :thumbsup:
Wait! Did you just mention "God"? You people and your concepts of morality!!!
I'd be willing to bet the house that they will be. I'm basing this on the fact that I actually know the people I speak of, and knowing how intelligent and successful they are already at such a young age. I'm sorry I'm 26, so my peers too are in their 20s. This cripples my argument how? The law school and med school students I know today, will be doctors and lawyers in the next couple of years. And there's nothing to indicate with a year left of med school or a semester left of law school that any of them are anywhere near any kind of danger of flunking out, as I guess you're assuming.
Look man, I appreciate your position on this, but you haven't even tried to understand the affects of MJ use if your argument is based on kids in the present. You're only focused on the here and now, and you're not looking at how the damage manifests itself in the future. That's all I'm trying to say. Look at these guys down the road and tell me how they stack up to their peer group. At least, based on the things that I have read, you'll see something there that supports my side of this.
I don't know what you do for a living that's so high and mighty, but I do know that you probably make less than the 24 year old "clown", I'm fairly certain that you did when you were his age, and I also know that most people in the real world consider doctors and lawyers to be esteemed occupations. It's safe to say most would probably rank it above whatever it is you do, in terms of success and the drive and motivation it takes to get there. And no, I'm not trying to turn this into an elitist "You don't make as much as so-and-so" argument, but you're the one lumping everyone who smokes pot into this dregs of society, absolute bottom tier of the caste system.
No... You just don't get it; you're not keeping up. I'm saying, based on everything that I have read on the topic, people who use MJ are handicapping themselves. I'm not really talking about who earns more and less right now. There's no "high and mighty" argument here, although I'm throwing out some humorous sarcasim to keep you going (and WOW is it working!). None of that matters. This is where the conservative versus liberal view comes to light, and your view is the liberal view. You're too focused on the here and now, even with the risks. If it feels good, do it. Don't worry about those pesky consequences... On the other hand, the conservative point of view recognizes that there are consequences to everything. If scientific study after scientific study suggest that MJ use during the developmental years can lead to longer term mental issues, why take that risk? That's it.
How many gold medals have you won for the United States? More than anyone ever in the entire 3000 year old history of the Olympics, or zero? You'd think this would be the Jesse Owens to your inferiority argument, Hitler, but I guess you're more closed minded than Adolf himself. I tell you, that marijuana just makes you a completely worthless drain on society, incapable of reaching goals or having ambition. A perfect model of an unhealthy lifestyle.
Again, you continue to be focused on the here and now. You can teach a monkey to do just about anything. If this twirp is the pothead that he appears to be, let's see where he ends up in another couple of decades when the damage to his brain becomes more evident. If he is what he appears to be, I suspect that he'll end up just like those other washed-out thug athletes. On top of the world today... Swimming in the gutters tomorrow...
He's an idiot when it's convenient to your argument. A misunderstood genius when THAT fits your argument.
You can't keep up... I've never called him a "genius", but it must be acceptable for YOU to use generalizations of some straw-man Republipuke that you've assembled in your feminized mind. You're pathetic with your brush and your broad strokes... :taunt:
What about Arnold Schwarzenegger?
Let me guess, he's not a REAL Republican either. No kind of success story there...
How about another Republican Governor, Michael Bloomberg? Look up his response when New York Magazine asked him if he ever smoked pot. "You bet I did. And I enjoyed it!" Eighth richest man in the world worth over 20 billion dollars...He must have acquired that from sucking dick in back alleyways, since we all know that's all that a pot smoker can amount to.
We probably need another discussion thread to review how those who win beauty pagents and popularity contests aren't really producers and achievers. By the way, those evil Republicans aren't exactly proud of these two mental giants, and I thought Bloomberg became an independent.
Ted Turner funds the Kentucky Hemp Museum...sure would hate to have his billions...Oh yeah, I forgot he's a communist because he founded CNN. Damn, when you can so quickly shoot my arguments because they're on your 10 billion page black list, I guess I just have no credibility.
My blacklist isn't that big... Seriously, you're not even discussing the original topic. You're searching for role models to excuse the behavior. Is this how you win arguments?
I'm growing tired of this pathetic whining and bitching... "I know you are but what am I?" Blah, blah, blah... :taunt:
It goes without saying that every musician ever is on your list. Nah, you strike me more of a Toby Kieth fan. Oh, damn, guess you've never heard "Smoke Weed With Willie".
More into the "pure" country artists, probably then right. Like Hank Williams Sr. & Jr., Johnny Cash, David Allan Coe, Waylon Jennings, Merle Haggard, Willie Nelson...damn damn damn!!!
Musicians... :rofl:
Are we done here?
Well, if all you have are silly little emotional outbursts with the occassional "role model" exception, I guess so...
Ogre already pointed out what should be painfully obvious, so I won't repeat it here.
Well, give me some real science that says it's good for you, or not as bad as alcohol. You guys try to justify your behavior by bringing up others who do it, admitted to doing it, or have been caught doing it. Most people grow out of that by age 10. It seems that some don't...
This is laughable. The one that lacks an agenda? Seriously? Damn science and it's agenda. Damn actual facts besides the made up statistics you can parrot from the same inventors of this farcical war on drugs.
There you go with that brush again... You haven't even scratched the surface of the "war on drugs" issue. So, do we only legalize pot, or how does it work in your mind? What do we do about cocaine? And, crack is a whole other issues... Meth is really big right now too! :eyeroll:
And after all this, keep in mind that I can count on one hand the number of times I've smoked pot, so don't paint me into your hippie devoid of all credibility brush.
Me too...
-
This is a pretty weak post, but I'll give it a minute.
Prosecuting people for smoking and pssessing marijuana is one of the stupidest fucking things this country does. It is a monumental waste of money and is similar to pissing in the wind.
I don't think we have an excessive number of convictions for the above issues. Most convictions involve transport and distribution.
There's your minute...
-
I'm sure you meant 50%, not 5.
Statistics show that 42% of Americans ADMIT to smoking marijuana despite its illegality.
Maybe 5% are as adamantly supportive of the law as GarMan and TarHeel...
What law? Let's be specific (or pacific for some) if we're going to paint broad strokes wiff dat brush.
-
I love lead paint chips.
When they're properly salted with a bit of salsa, they fuckin' rock!
-
I guess I don't understand your definition of "indifferent"
So 5% of the population are indifferent to the law, meaning 95% of people abide faithfully? 95% of people strictly obey the speed limit? 95% of people have never smoked pot?
I'm not being a dick, I just really don't understand the argument you're trying to make.
I think he was hitting a bong while typing. That shit will rot your brain, man! The stat doesn't make any sense.
And, don't sell yourself short. With a little more effort, you CAN be a dick.
-
Your argument is predicated on the idea that the SAME amount of consumption of marijuana is as dangerous as the SAME amount of consumption of alcohol, and that's just not true.
Well, how would you measure that? Does the "SAME amount" mean absorption by the body? What about chemical influence? That's a tough call. I think it's safe to say that a physically small amount of MJ affects you in ways that are equivalent to a much larger amount of alcohol consumption.
As far as your whole lazy worthless dregs of society stereotype, I'm giving you credit and assuming you're talking about people who smoke several times a day. How productive are people who stay drunk all day? I have a friend whose dad is a major alcoholic. He's not curing cancer.
HOLD ON THERE COWBOY!!! THAT was your perception from my post. YOU took it to the extreme. That's not what I said. MJ affects brain development. It doesn't mean that you'll be a retard tomorrow. It just suggests that you'll be less than what you could have been.
Which brings up TarHeel's argument I let slide earlier, about how you'd get fired if you showed up with alcohol on your breath. No shit! No one's advocating showing up to work high. But if you take a piss test for your job and it shows up that you consumed alcohol in the last month, no one gives a shit.
Technically, a recent study has shown that MJ consumption doesn't just reside in the body for 30 days, it can affect you for up to 30 days. Something about <I don't care.>... blah, blah, blah...
I found one reference to it...
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20050207/marijuanas-effects-linger-in-brain?src=rss_foxnews (http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20050207/marijuanas-effects-linger-in-brain?src=rss_foxnews)
And, the source...
Herning, R. Neurology, Feb. 8, 2005; vol 64: pp 488-493. News release, American Academy of Neurology.
-
Obviously. :poke: The word indifferent is confusing. Let's say that 5% indulge or disregard a certain law.
5% is the threshold. If 5% or more of the population disregard a certain law then it can not be effectively policed. MJ and speeding are just two of the easiest examples to pull out of your hat. 5 % of the population is roughly 15 million people or so. The police and law enforcement establishment can't keep up with it when the numbers run that high.
Actually, there was a study not too far back that showed more that 40% of the population wouldn't have a problem with theft if "someone was hungry". Should that make it legal? Just a thought...
-
Actually, there was a study not too far back that showed more that 40% of the population wouldn't have a problem with theft if "someone was hungry". Should that make it legal? Just a thought...
I knew someone would play this card or something similar. What is the main difference between theft for any reason and smoking a joint or eating a hash brownie? Hint: one "crime" has a victim and the other one doesn't.
-
This is a pretty weak post, but I'll give it a minute.
I don't think we have an excessive number of convictions for the above issues. Most convictions involve transport and distribution.
There's your minute...
That took you a minute?
Depends on what article you read. I read one that said 1 out of 6 people in prison were there for mj related crimes and 25% of those were for simple possession type deals. Take just that % and it is a monumental waste of money. Throw in the other stuff (trafficking, etc.) which would diminish to a large degree were it legalized and then it is colossally dumb.
We are now, and have been for a while the #1 country in the world afa % of the poulation in jail. We just passed the 1 % mark last year.. There was 1 out of 99 people incarcerated in jails /prisons last year. One huge reason is because we simply love putting people away for victimless/moral crimes. Some people just love to thump their bibles.
-
I knew someone would play this card or something similar. What is the main difference between theft for any reason and smoking a joint or eating a hash brownie? Hint: one "crime" has a victim and the other one doesn't.
Again, only the immediate short-sided view... I think the current down-breeding trend of our American society really doesn't need anymore stimulation to accelerate our decline. Public schools are a fucking joke. Now, many of our universities are turning to shit, or at a minimum, they're churning out shit-for-brain kids who can't think or do anything without explicit directions and extensive babysitting. The civil rights movement has adopted socialist and communist ideals pushing them for decades. Now, we've got a President who seems to be a Marxist worshiper legislating wealth redistribution and a gross expansion of the federal government to rule over the peasants. And, you guys want to legalize pot? :blink:
-
That took you a minute?
I picked my nose too, if it makes you feel any better.
Depends on what article you read. I read one that said 1 out of 6 people in prison were there for mj related crimes and 25% of those were for simple possession type deals. Take just that % and it is a monumental waste of money. Throw in the other stuff (trafficking, etc.) which would diminish to a large degree were it legalized and then it is colossally dumb.
I think that's a serious stretch. I'd like to see some real stats on that, not these misunderstood or fabricated ones. My biggest issue is with the trafficking and distribution channels. Of course, that wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't a demand.
We are now, and have been for a while the #1 country in the world afa % of the poulation in jail. We just passed the 1 % mark last year.. There was 1 out of 99 people incarcerated in jails /prisons last year. One huge reason is because we simply love putting people away for victimless/moral crimes. Some people just love to thump their bibles.
Again, I'd like to see some stats on that. And, this victimless/moral crimes argument is weak. Perhaps, if you grow your own for personal consumption, it's victimless. Oh, what's this? Victimless crime?
http://www.11alive.com/rss/rss_story.aspx?storyid=127572 (http://www.11alive.com/rss/rss_story.aspx?storyid=127572)
-
Again, I'd like to see some stats on that. And, this victimless/moral crimes argument is weak. Perhaps, if you grow your own for personal consumption, it's victimless.
Guess what? If it were legal, it would be 100% victimless. The 1930s Mob had plenty of victims as well.
Oh, what's this? Victimless crime?
http://www.11alive.com/rss/rss_story.aspx?storyid=127572 (http://www.11alive.com/rss/rss_story.aspx?storyid=127572)
Aside from the absurdity of using this as an example as if it is common for everyone who smokes pot to stuff a cat in their bong...are you with PETA now, by the way? How many endlessly more stupid things have been done when people were drunk? How many bar fights have resulted in serious violence? How many "Hey man watch this" type situations?
Again, I'm not condemning alcohol, but everything you have said so far to condemn marijuana can be said IN SPADES about alcohol. I know you are incapable of self-thought. If Sean Hannity says it, then by God, it's the Gospel.
Oh, and I'm the one in an ivory tower. :rofl:
-
Guess what? If it were legal, it would be 100% victimless. The 1930s Mob had plenty of victims as well.
Oh yeah... All of the problems would go away overnight. You 26 year olds with all of your life-long experiences and worldly advice have all the fuckin' answers. :taunt:
Aside from the absurdity of using this as an example as if it is common for everyone who smokes pot to stuff a cat in their bong...are you with PETA now, by the way? How many endlessly more stupid things have been done when people were drunk? How many bar fights have resulted in serious violence? How many "Hey man watch this" type situations?
Get off your platform of ignorant superiority for just one fuckin' minute and have fun with the dumbass article. It's just another dope smoking moron doing something stupid. Do I care about anything in that article? NO! But, at least he's not going to lose any multi-million dollar endorsements for this stupid stunt like that cocky twirp, Phelps. :rofl:
Again, I'm not condemning alcohol, but everything you have said so far to condemn marijuana can be said IN SPADES about alcohol. I know you are incapable of self-thought.
No, it can't... You haven't posted one fuckin' reference to support you pathetic opinion. Instead, you go trolling for "role models", and float the childish excuse of "if they did it, it must be safe" as sole support for your position. You've limited your support structure to your immediate circle of influences and your "vast" 26 years of experiences. You're the one incapable of any "self-thought". You don't know enough about the topic to have any credibility on it, and you've ignored every attempt to bring science and stats into the discussion. Do you really believe that your limited scope of influences qualifies you to be an "expert" on the matter? Now, that's fucking arrogant! :rofl:
Here's an idea... Go find a random sampling of 100 know-it-all, pot-smoking, 20-somethings. Let's put them through some tests to measure their problem solving ability. Let's keep track of them for a decade, and give them the same test. Let's do it again after another decade. Let's review the results and compare our findings with those of their non-pot-smoking peers. With all of the science behind this, do you really think they'd be on par with each other? :thumbsup:
If Sean Hannity says it, then by God, it's the Gospel.
At least, Hannity would bring reference-able facts and stats to the discussion to support his position. You've brought nothing to the table short of what's in your empty skull, and there really isn't much there... :blink:
Oh, and I'm the one in an ivory tower. :rofl:
Why, yes... Yes, you are! :eyeroll:
By the way, how was the wedding yesterday? Did you escort the bride down the aisle? And, did you help him get dressed into his gown before the wedding?
-
Again, only the immediate short-sided view... I think the current down-breeding trend of our American society really doesn't need anymore stimulation to accelerate our decline. Public schools are a fucking joke. Now, many of our universities are turning to shit, or at a minimum, they're churning out shit-for-brain kids who can't think or do anything without explicit directions and extensive babysitting. The civil rights movement has adopted socialist and communist ideals pushing them for decades. Now, we've got a President who seems to be a Marxist worshiper legislating wealth redistribution and a gross expansion of the federal government to rule over the peasants. And, you guys want to legalize pot? :blink:
Yes. The revenue generated from doing so could help attack many of the problems with society that you point out here. People who want to are going to smoke anyways for the most part and all it is doing is costing the government billions to ATTEMPT to police it. I really don't think mj use would go off the boards if it were legalized/de-criminalized. It would have a temporary spike and then level out a bit in my opinion.
I suppose that your solution to the problems you've listed here is to contiue as we are now and waste billions trying to police it while we continue to improve on our #1 standing among all countries for imprisoning our population? Wow, that is really smart.
I wish I had the stats on successful people who indulge in drugs. I know a few millionaires from my days in sales and elsewhere and have known some people who were closely connected to political figures and there is no shortage of drug usage in any of those circles. Kinda like in college where the many frats have some serious drug usage going on. Hell, pot is probably the minority drug in a lot of frats and sororities.
But lets forget all the common sense stuff and just keep arresting people for smoking doobies and holding small amounts of pot. Lets fill the federal prisons with those who supply their needs.
-
I picked my nose too, if it makes you feel any better.
I think that's a serious stretch. I'd like to see some real stats on that, not these misunderstood or fabricated ones. My biggest issue is with the trafficking and distribution channels. Of course, that wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't a demand.
Again, I'd like to see some stats on that. And, this victimless/moral crimes argument is weak. Perhaps, if you grow your own for personal consumption, it's victimless. Oh, what's this? Victimless crime?
http://www.11alive.com/rss/rss_story.aspx?storyid=127572 (http://www.11alive.com/rss/rss_story.aspx?storyid=127572)
Yeah, if you were really digging for some gold, that would explain it.
It is surprisingly hard to find inmate/mj stats and such, but I did find an interesdting one for now that comes from the fbi. It is from 2007 and states that nationally that year approximately 40% of all drug related arrests were for simple mj possession. Only approx. 5% were for trafficking and distribution. Granted there probably aren't as many in federal pens for simple possession there is a tremedous waste of time, lives, and resources that goes into trying to fight a war that is a complete waste of time.
fbi stats (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/arrests/index.html)
-
Bear with me. My response was so long it wouldn't let me post. I've tried stating my case succinctly, but GarMan won't accept any argument from me, so I have to copy & paste from other sources, like he does.
Oh yeah... All of the problems would go away overnight. You 26 year olds with all of your life-long experiences and worldly advice have all the fuckin' answers. :taunt:
This is evidence of your lack of cognitive ability. Tell me how a violent crimes over a drug deals would persist when you can buy marijuana at the package store, or at least from a licensed doctor. No, instead bring my age into the argument as if it were relevant at all. That's your M.O. though. Ignore facts, or anything really pertaining to the argument itself, and cling to whatever you possibly can to attack the credibility of whoever's arguing against you.
Get off your platform of ignorant superiority for just one fuckin' minute and have fun with the dumbass article. It's just another dope smoking moron doing something stupid. Do I care about anything in that article? NO! But, at least he's not going to lose any multi-million dollar endorsements for this stupid stunt like that cocky twirp, Phelps. :rofl:
This meant nothing. You fail to point out how this is TYPICAL behavior in any way of marijuana use. You fail to distinguish how alcohol use is ANY BETTER when it comes to making people do insanely stupid things that can harm themselves and others. Instead, you talk about MY ignorant superiority, completely oblivious to the irony that this coming from the guy trying to argue that every one who has ever used marijuana is worthless burnout scum, and doing so by claiming that I can't possibly have any insight on the topic and all of my opinions are moot because I'm younger than you. Then, because you're backed into a corner you throw in a bonus slam at someone that shatters your stereotype by dogging an American Hero just because in your small mind doing so supports your particular argument.
No, it can't... You haven't posted one fuckin' reference to support you pathetic opinion. Instead, you go trolling for "role models", and float the childish excuse of "if they did it, it must be safe" as sole support for your position. You've limited your support structure to your immediate circle of influences and your "vast" 26 years of experiences. You're the one incapable of any "self-thought". You don't know enough about the topic to have any credibility on it, and you've ignored every attempt to bring science and stats into the discussion. Do you really believe that your limited scope of influences qualifies you to be an "expert" on the matter? Now, that's fucking arrogant! :rofl:
First of all, I don't need a fucking scientific study to tell me that people do stupid shit when they're drunk. Are you arguing that no one has ever injured themselves while intoxicated from alcohol? Where is your study that supports this statistic?
However, since you're so hellbent on me providing a link, here's what 5 seconds of googling provided. Next time, I suggest you do the same.
http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/ (http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/)
(http://www.saferchoice.org/images/SAFER/comparingdangers.png)
Dependence: How difficult it is for the user to quit, the relapse rate, the percentage of people who eventually become dependent, the rating users give their own need for the substance and the degree to which the substance will be used in the face of evidence that it causes harm.
Withdrawal: Presence and severity of characteristic withdrawal symptoms.
Tolerance: How much of the substance is needed to satisfy increasing cravings for it, and the level of stable need that is eventually reached.
Reinforcement: A measure of the substance's ability, in human and animal tests, to get users to take it again and again, and in preference to other substances.
Intoxication: Though not usually counted as a measure of addiction in itself, the level of intoxication is associated with addiction and increases the personal and social damage a substance may do.
Source: Jack E. Henningfield, PhD for NIDA, Reported by Philip J. Hilts, New York Times, Aug. 2, 1994 "Is Nicotine Addictive? It Depends on Whose Criteria You Use." See, http://drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.htm
2. Deaths from the two substances. There are hundreds of alcohol overdose deaths each year, yet there has never been a marijuana overdose death in history. The consumption of alcohol is also the direct cause of tens of thousands of deaths in the U.S. each year.
In 2001, there were 331 alcohol overdose deaths and 0 marijuana overdose deaths. Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm
Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States (1) and is associated with multiple adverse health consequences, including liver cirrhosis, various cancers, unintentional injuries, and violence.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported 20,687 “alcohol-induced deaths” (excluding accidents and homicides) in 2003. Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm
The CDC has no reports of “marijuana-induced deaths.” (In reality, there may be 2-5 deaths each year attributed to marijuana, but this article -- http://bbsnews.net/bw2005-02-01.html -- describes how these are actually deaths attributable to other causes but “blamed” on marijuana due to the way the data is collected.)
3. Alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs, and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect can lead to death. Marijuana is one of – if not the – least toxic drugs, requiring thousands times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death. This “thousands times” is actually theoretical, since there has never been a recorded case of marijuana overdose.
The most toxic recreational drugs, such as GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyrate) and heroin, have a lethal dose less than 10 times their typical effective dose. The largest cluster of substances has a lethal dose that is 10 to 20 times the effective dose: These include cocaine, MDMA (methylenedioxymethamphetamine, often called "ecstasy") and alcohol. A less toxic group of substances, requiring 20 to 80 times the effective dose to cause death, include Rohypnol (flunitrazepam or "roofies") and mescaline (peyote cactus). The least physiologically toxic substances, those requiring 100 to 1,000 times the effective dose to cause death, include psilocybin mushrooms and marijuana, when ingested. I've found no published cases in the English language that document deaths from smoked marijuana, so the actual lethal dose is a mystery. My surmise is that smoking marijuana is more risky than eating it but still safer than getting drunk.
Despite the health risks and social costs, consciousness-altering chemicals have been used for centuries in almost all cultures. So it would be unrealistic to expect that all types of recreational drug use will suddenly cease. Self-management of these substances is extremely difficult, yet modern Western societies have not, in general, developed positive, socially sanctioned rituals as a means of regulating the use of some of the less hazardous recreational drugs. I would argue that we need to do that.
Source: The American Scientist, the Magazine of Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society. http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/50773?&print=y
4. Long-term marijuana use is far less harmful than long-term alcohol use.
There is little evidence, however, that long-term cannabis use causes permanent cognitive impairment, nor is there is any clear cause and effect relationship to explain the psychosocial associations.
There are some physical health risks, particularly the possibility of damage to the airways in cannabis smokers. Overall, by comparison with other drugs used mainly for ‘recreational’ purposes, cannabis could be rated to be a relatively safe drug.
Source: Iversen, Leslie. Current Opinion in Pharmacology. Volume 5, Issue 1, February 2005, Pages 69-72. Long-term effects of exposure to cannabis. University of Oxford, Department of Pharmacology.
5. The United Kingdom's Science and Technology Select Committee considers alcohol far more harmful than marijuana.
The committee commissioned an assessment of 20 legal and illegal stimulants in order to bring some logic to the country’s drug classification. Based on this study, they made recommendations to the government, including a recommendation that alcohol be considered among the most harmful drugs. Cannabis was considered significantly less harmful. (See chart below.) As you can see in the chart below, cannabis was recently rescheduled in the UK and is now a Class C substance (with A being the most harmful).
(http://www.saferchoice.org/images/SAFER/newscien.jpg)
Source: New Scientist Magazine. Issue 2563. August 2006, page 5. Drug-danger 'league table' revealed.
6. There has never been a documented case of lung cancer in a marijuana-only smoker, and recent studies find that marijuana use is not associated with any type of cancer. The same cannot be said for alcohol, which has been found to contribute to a variety of long-term negative health effects, including cancers and cirrhosis of the liver.
It could be interesting to note in the chart the difference between what people usually consider the most likely serious harms associated with marijuana and alcohol. While there has never been a documented case of lung cancer in a marijuana-only smoker, there are clearly thousands of deaths by liver disease directly associated with alcohol – 12,360 in 2003, to be exact. [See, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm . Note also on this page that “alcoholic liver disease” is a separate category from “alcohol-induced deaths, excluding accidents and homicides.” Thus the 20,687 cited in #2 (as “deaths from alcohol consumption” could easily be 33,047.]
Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection
By Marc Kaufman, Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, May 26, 2006; Page A03
The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.
The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.
"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.
Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.
Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood.
They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lighted up more than 22,000 times, while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.
"This is the largest case-control study ever done, and everyone had to fill out a very extensive questionnaire about marijuana use," he said. "Bias can creep into any research, but we controlled for as many confounding factors as we could, and so I believe these results have real meaning."
Tashkin's group at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA had hypothesized that marijuana would raise the risk of cancer on the basis of earlier small human studies, lab studies of animals, and the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and generally hold smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers -- exposing them to the dangerous chemicals for a longer time. In addition, Tashkin said, previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar.
While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.
The study was limited to people younger than 60 because those older than that were generally not exposed to marijuana in their youth, when it is most often tried.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html
-
7. Studies find alcohol use contributes to the likelihood of domestic violence and sexual assault and marijuana use does not.
Of the psychoactive substances examined, among individuals who were chronic partner abusers, the use of alcohol and cocaine was associated with significant increases in the daily likelihood of male-to-female physical aggression; cannabis and opiates were not significantly associated with an increased likelihood of male partner violence.
…the odds of any male-to-female physical aggression were more than 8 times (11 times) higher on days when men drank than on days of no alcohol consumption. The odds of severe male-to-female physical aggression were more than 11 times (11 times) higher on days of men’s drinking than on days of no drinking. Moreover, in both samples, over 60% of all episodes occurred within 2 hours of drinking by the male partner. (page 1557)
Source: Fals-Stewart , William, James Golden, Julie A. Schumacher. Journal of Addictive Behaviors. 28, pages 1555-1574. Intimate partner violence and substance use: A longitudinal day-to-day examination. Research Institute on Addictions, University at Buffalo, State University of New York
8. Studies find alcohol use contributes to aggressive behavior and acts of violence, whereas marijuana use reduces the likelihood of violent behavior.
Alcohol is clearly the drug with the most evidence to support a direct intoxication-violence relationship.
Cannabis reduces likelihood of violence during intoxication…
Source: Hoaken, Peter N.S., Sherry H. Stewart. Journal of Addictive Behaviors. 28, pages 1533-1554. Drugs of abuse and the elicitation of human aggressive behavior. Dept. of Psychology, University of Western Ontario. Dept. of of Psychiatry, Dalhousie University.
9. Alcohol use is highly associated with violent crime, whereas marijuana use is not.
About 3 million violent crimes occur each year in which victims perceive the offender to have been drinking at the time of the offense.
Two-thirds of victims who suffered violence by an intimate (a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend) reported that alcohol had been a factor.
Among spouse victims, 3 out of 4 incidents were reported to have involved an offender who had been drinking.
Source: U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. National Crime Victimization Survey 2002.
10. Alcohol use is a catalyst for domestic violence in Denver.
Alcohol is involved in nearly 50 percent of all domestic violence cases in Denver, and the use of alcohol by the perpetrator is a predominant factor in fatal cases of domestic violence.
Marijuana is not mentioned as a correlating or causal factor in cases of domestic violence in Denver.
Source: Abrams, Margaret L., Joanne Belknap, Heather C. Melton. When Domestic Violence Kills: The Formation and Findings of the Denver Metro Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee. March 2001.
11. Alcohol use is prevalent in cases of sexual assault and date rape on college campuses. Marijuana use is not considered a contributing factor in cases of sexual assault and date rape, as judged by the lack of discussion of marijuana in sexual assault and date rape educational materials.
A Harvard School of Public Heath study found that 72 percent of college rapes occurred when the female was too intoxicated by alcohol to resist/consent. Source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/cas/Documents/rapeintox-pressRelease/
Comparisons between alcohol and marijuana with respect to sexual assault are very difficult. This is because it does not appear as if marijuana is a significant contributing factor. The best way to "prove" this is through observation that many organizations dedicated to studying and educating about sexual assault do not list marijuana as a substance associated with incidents. Here is a good example from the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network: http://www.rainn.org/types-of-assault/sexual-assault/drug-facilitated-assault.html
Note their description of alcohol: "Alcohol is the most commonly used chemical in drug facilitated sexual assault. In large part this is due to the fact that alcohol is easily accessible and a chemical that many people use in social interactions." Given the fact that marijuana is also "easily accessible" and used widely in "social interactions," it is quite telling that marijuana is not even listed at all on this "Drug Facilitated Assault" page.
Another example: A Web site sponsored by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services lists alcohol, but not marijuana, as putting a person at risk for unwanted or risky sexual activity: http://www.4woman.gov/faq/rohypnol.htm#5
Go ahead. Rip the source, completely ignoring all of the sources they site.
Here's another reference you will no doubt dismiss as a bunch of hippie garbage...I'm fairly positive that the P.H.D. who published this is over 26, so maybe his research is valid. Hopefully the sources he explicitly sited are over 26 as well, or I wasted a whole 5 minutes googling, copying and pasting.
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3475#1 (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3475#1)
Myth: Marijuana is a Dangerous Drug
Any discussion of marijuana should begin with the fact that there have been numerous official reports and studies, every one of which has concluded that marijuana poses no great risk to society and should not be criminalized. These include: the National Academy of Sciences' "Analysis of Marijuana Policy"(1982); the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (the Shafer Report) (1973); the Canadian Government's Commission of Inquiry (Le Dain Report) (1970); the British Advisory Committee on Drug Dependency (Wooton Report) (1968); the La Guardia Report (1944); the Panama Canal Zone Military Investigations (1916-29); and Britain's monumental Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1893-4).
It is sometimes claimed that there is "new evidence" showing marijuana is more harmful than was thought in the sixties. In fact, the most recent studies have tended to confirm marijuana's safety, refuting claims that it causes birth defects, brain damage, reduced testosterone, or increased drug abuse problems.
The current consensus is well stated in the 20th annual report of the California Research Advisory Panel (1990), which recommended that personal use and cultivation of marijuana be legalized: "An objective consideration of marijuana shows that it is responsible for less damage to society and the individual than are alcohol and cigarettes."
References: The National Academy of Sciences report, "Marijuana and Health" (National Academy Press, 1982), remains the most useful overview of the health effects of marijuana, its major conclusions remaining largely unaffected by the last 10 years of research. Lovinger and Jones, The Marihuana Question (Dodd, Mead & Co., NY 1985), is the most exhaustive and fair-handed summary of the evidence against marijuana. Good, positive perspectives may be found in Lester Grinspoon's Marihuana, the Forbidden Medicine (Yale Press, 1993) and Marihuana Reconsidered (Harvard U. Press 1971), which debunks many of the older anti-pot myths. See also Leo Hollister, "Health Aspects of Cannabis," Pharmacological Reviews 38:1-20 (1986).
Myth: One Joint Equals One Pack (or 16, or maybe just 4) Cigarettes
Some critics exaggerate the dangers of marijuana smoking by fallaciously citing a study by Dr. Tashkin which found that daily pot smokers experienced a "mild but significant" increase in airflow resistance in the large airways greater than that seen in persons smoking 16 cigarettes per day.1 What they ignore is that the same study examined other, more important aspects of lung health, in which marijuana smokers did much better than tobacco smokers. Dr. Tashkin himself disavows the notion that one joint equals 16 cigarettes.
A more widely accepted estimate is that marijuana smokers consume four times as much carcinogenic tar as cigarettes smokers per weight smoked.2 This does not necessarily mean that one joint equals four cigarettes, since joints usually weigh less. In fact, the average joint has been estimated to contain 0.4 grams of pot, a bit less than one-half the weight of a cigarette, making one joint equal to two cigarettes (actually, joint sizes range from cigar-sized spliffs smoked by Rastas, to very fine sinsemilla joints weighing as little as 0.2 grams). It should be noted that there is no exact equivalency between tobacco and marijuana smoking, because they affect different parts of the respiratory tract differently: whereas tobacco tends to penetrate to the smaller, peripheral passageways of the lungs, pot tends to concentrate on the larger, central passageways.3 One consequence of this is that pot, unlike tobacco, does not appear to cause emphysema.
Footnotes
1. D. Tashkin, "Respiratory Status of 74 Habitual Marijuana Smokers," Chest 78 #5: 699-706 (Nov. 1980).
2. T-C. Wu, D. Tashkin, B. Djahed and J.E. Rose, "Pulmonary hazards of smoking marijuana as compared with tobacco," New England Journal of Medicine 318:
347-51 (1988).
3. Donald Tashkin et al, "Effects of Habitual Use of Marijuana and/or Cocaine on the Lung," loc.cit.
Myth: Prohibition Reduces the Harmfulness of Pot Smoking
Whatever the risks of pot smoking, the current laws make matters worse in several respects: (1) Paraphernalia laws have impeded the development and marketing of water pipes and other, more advanced technology that could significantly reduce the harmfulness of marijuana smoke. (2) Prohibition encourages the sale of pot that has been contaminated or adulterated by insecticides, Paraquat, etc., or mixed with other drugs such as PCP, crack and heroin. (3) By raising the price of marijuana, prohibition makes it uneconomical to consume marijuana orally, the best way to avoid smoke exposure altogether; this is because eating typically requires two or three times as much marijuana as smoking.
Unlike the government, NORML is interested in reducing the dangers of pot smoking; California NORML and MAPS (the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) are currently researching the use of waterpipes and other advanced smoke reduction technology.
References on Marijuana and Smoking: Donald Tashkin, "Is Frequent Marijuana Smoking Hazardous To Health?", Western Journal of Medicine 158 #6: 635-7; June 1993; Research Findings on Smoking of Abused Substances, ed. C. Nora Chiang and Richard L. Hawks, NIDA Research Monograph 99 (National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD 1990); NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Report,op. cit.; California NORML, "Health Tips for Marijuana Smokers."
Myth: Marijuana is a Major Road Safety Hazard
A growing body of research indicates that marijuana is on balance less of a road hazard than alcohol. Various surveys have found that half or more of fatal drivers have alcohol in their blood, as opposed to 7 - 20% with THC, the major psychoactive component of marijuana (a condition usually indicative of having smoked within the past 2-4 hours).1 The same studies show that some 70% - 90% of those who are THC-positive also have alcohol in their blood. It therefore appears that marijuana by itself is a minor road safety hazard, though the combination of pot and alcohol is not. Some research has even suggested that low doses of marijuana may sometimes improve driving performance, though this is probably not true in most cases.2
Two major new studies by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration have confirmed marijuana's relative safety compared with alcohol. The first, the most comprehensive drug accident study to date, surveyed blood samples from 1882 drivers killed in car, truck and motorcycle accidents in seven states during 1990-91.3 Alcohol was found in 51.5% of specimens, as against 17.8% for all other drugs combined. Marijuana, the second most common drug, appeared in just 6.7%. Two-thirds of the marijuana-using drivers also had alcohol. The report concluded that alcohol was by far the "dominant" drug-related problem in accidents. It went on to analyze the responsibility of drivers for the accidents they were involved in. It found that drivers who used alcohol were especially culpable in fatal accidents, and even more so when they combined it with marijuana or other drugs. However, those who used marijuana alone appeared to be if anything less culpable than non-drug users (though the date were insufficient to be statistically conclusive). The report concluded, "There was no indication that marijuana by itself was a cause of fatal accidents." (It must be emphasized that this is not the case when marijuana is combined with alcohol or other drugs).
The second NHTSA study, "Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance," concluded that the adverse effects of cannabis on driving appear "relatively small" and are less than those of drunken driving.4 The study, conducted in the Netherlands, examined the performance of drivers in actual freeway and urban driving situations at various doses of marijuana. It found that marijuana produces a moderate, dose-related decrement in road tracking ability, but is "not profoundly impairing" and "in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs." It found that marijuana's effects at the higher doses preferred by smokers never exceed those of alcohol at blood concentrations of .08%, the minimum level for legal intoxication in stricter states such as California. The study found that unlike alcohol, which encourages risky driving, marijuana appears to produce greater caution, apparently because users are more aware of their state and able to compensate for it (similar results have been reported by other researchers as well5) It should be noted that these results may not apply to non-driving related situations, where forgetfulness or inattention can be more important than speed (this might explain the discrepancy in the Baltimore hospital study, which looked at accidents of all kinds). The NHTSA study also warned that marijuana could also be quite dangerous in emergency situations that put high demands on driving skills.
Footnotes
1. Dale Gieringer, "Marijuana, Driving, and Accident Safety," Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20 (1): 93-101 (Jan-Mar 1988).
2. H. Klonoff, "Marijuana and driving in real-life situations," Science 186: 317-24 (1974).
3. K.W. Terhune et al., "The Incidence and Role of Drugs in Fatally Injured Drivers," NHTSA Report # DOT-HS-808-065 (1994).
4. Hendrik Robbe and James O'Hanlon, "Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance," NHTSA Report #DOT-HS-808-078 (1994).
5. Klonoff, loc. cit.; A. Smiley, "Marijuana: On-road and driving simulator studies," Alcohol, Drugs and Driving: Abstracts and Reviews 2#3-4: 15-30 (1986).
-
Myth: Marijuana Prohibition Improves Public Safety
There is no evidence that the prohibition of marijuana reduces the net social risk of accidents. On the contrary, recent studies suggest that marijuana may actually be beneficial in that it substitutes for alcohol and other, more dangerous drugs. Research by Karyn Model found that states with marijuana decriminalization had lower overall drug abuse rates than others; another study by Frank Chaloupka found decriminalization states have lower accident rates too.1 In Alaska, accident rates held constant or declined following the legalization of personal use of marijuana.2 In Holland, authorities believe that cannabis has contributed to an overall decline in opiate abuse. Recent U.S. government statistics show that the highest rates of cocaine abuse in the West were in Nevada and Arizona, the states with the toughest marijuana laws.
Footnotes
1. Peter Passell, "Less Marijuana, More Alcohol?" New York Times June 17, 1992.
2. Michael Dunham, "When the Smoke Clears," Reason March 1983 pp.33-6.
Myth: A Single Joint Has Effects That Linger for Days and Weeks [28]
While it is true that THC and other cannabinoids are fat-soluble and linger in the body for prolonged periods, they do not normally affect behavior beyond a few hours except in chronic users. Most impairment studies have found that the adverse effects of acute marijuana use wear off in 2-6 hours, commonly faster than alcohol.1 The one notable exception was a pair of flight simulator studies by Leirer, Yesavage, and Morrow, which reported effects on flight simulator performance up to 24 hours later.2 The differences, described by Leirer as "very subtle" and "very marginal," were less than those due to pilot age. Another flight simulator study by the same group failed to find any effects beyond 4 hours.3 Similar "hangover" effects have been noted for alcohol.4
Chronic users may experience more prolonged effects due to a build-up of cannabinoids in the tissues. Some heavy users have reported feeling effects weeks or even months after stopping. However, there is no evidence that these are detrimental to safety.
References on Accidents and Drug Testing: Alcohol, Drugs and Driving: Abstracts and Reviews Vol. 2 #3-4 (Brain Information Service, UCLA 1986); Dale Gieringer, "Marijuana, Driving, and Accident Safety," Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20 (1): 93-101 (Jan.-Mar 1988); Dr. John Morgan, "Impaired Statistics and the Unimpaired Worker," Drug Policy Letter 1(2): May/June 1989, and "The 'scientific' justification for drug urine testing," The University of Kansas Law Review 36: 683-97 (1988); John Horgan, "Test Negative: A look at the evidence justifying illicit-drug tests," Scientific American, March 1990 pp. 18-22, and "Postal Mortem," Scientific American, Feb. 1991 pp. 22-3; Dale Gieringer, "Urinalysis or Uromancy?" in Strategies for Change: New Directions in Drug Policy (Drug Policy Foundation, 1992).
Footnotes
1. Alison Smiley, "Marijuana: On-Road and Driving Simulator Studies," Alcohol, Drugs, and Driving 2 #3-4: 121-34 (1986).
2. V.O. Leirer, J.A. Yesavage and D.G. Morrow, "Marijuana Carry-Over Effects on Aircraft Pilot Performance," Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine 62: 221-7 (March 1991); Yesavage, Leirer, et al., "Carry-Over effects of marijuana intoxication on aircraft pilot performance: a preliminary report," American Journal of Psychiatry 142: 1325-9 (1985).
3. Leirer, Yesavage and Morrow, "Marijuana, Aging and Task Difficulty Effects on Pilot Performance," Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine 60: 1145-52 (Dec. 1989).
4. Yesavage and Leirer, "Hangover Effects on Aircraft Pilots 14 Hours After Alcohol Ingestion: A Preliminary Report," American Journal of Psychiatry 143: 1546-50 (Dec. 1986).
Myth: Pot Kills Brain Cells
Government experts now admit that pot doesn't kill brain cells.1 This myth came from a handful of animal experiments in which structural changes (not actual cell death, as is often alleged) were observed in brain cells of animals exposed to high doses of pot. Many critics still cite the notorious monkey studies of Dr. Robert G. Heath, which purported to find brain damage in three monkeys that had been heavily dosed with cannabis.2 This work was never replicated and has since been discredited by a pair of better controlled, much larger monkey studies, one by Dr. William Slikker of the National Center for Toxicological Research3 and the other by Charles Rebert and Gordon Pryor of SRI International.4 Neither found any evidence of physical alteration in the brains of monkeys exposed to daily doses of pot for up to a year. Human studies of heavy users in Jamaica and Costa Rica found no evidence of abnormalities in brain physiology.5 Even though there is no evidence that pot causes permanent brain damage, users should be aware that persistent deficits in short-term memory have been noted in chronic, heavy marijuana smokers after 6 to 12 weeks of abstinence.6 It is worth noting that other drugs, including alcohol, are known to cause brain damage.
Footnotes
1. Dr. Christine Hartel, Acting Director of Research, National Institute of Drug Abuse, cited by the State of Hawaii Dept of Health, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division in memo of Feb. 4, 1994.
2. For an overview, see NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Report, op. cit., pp. 81-2. R.G. Heath et al, "Cannabis sativa: effects on brain function and ultrastructure in Rhesus monkeys," Biol. Psychiatry 15: 657-90 (1980).
3. William Slikker et al., "Chronic Marijuana Smoke Exposure in the Rhesus Monkey," Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 17: 321-32 (1991).
4. Charles Rebert & Gordon Pryor - "Chronic Inhalation of Marijuana Smoke and Brain Electrophysiology of Rhesus Monkeys," International Journal of Psychophysiology V 14, p.144, 1993.
5. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Report, pp. 82-7.
6. "Cannabis and Memory Loss," (editorial) British Journal of Addiction 86: 249-52 (1991)
Myth: Marijuana Causes Birth Defects
While experts generally recommend against any drug use during pregnancy, marijuana has little evidence implicating it in fetal harm, unlike alcohol, cocaine or tobacco. Epidemiological studies have found no evident link between prenatal use of marijuana and birth defects in humans.1 A recent study by Dr. Susan Astley at the University of Washington refuted an earlier work suggesting that cannabis might cause fetal alcohol syndrome.2
Although some research has found that prenatal cannabis use is associated with slightly reduced average birth weight and length,3 these studies have been open to methodological criticism. More recently, a well-controlled study found that cannabis use had a positive impact on birthweight during the third trimester of pregnancy with no adverse behavioral consequences.4 The same study found a slight reduction in birth length with pot use in the first two months of pregnancy. Another study of Jamaican women who had smoked pot throughout pregnancy found that their babies registered higher on developmental scores at the age of 30 days, while experiencing no significant effects on birthweight or length.5
While cannabis use is not recommended in pregnancy, it may be of medical value to some women in treating morning sickness or easing childbirth.
Footnotes
1. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Report, p. 99.
2. Dr. Susan Astley, "Analysis of Facial Shape in Children Gestationally Exposed to Marijuana, Alcohol, and/or Cocaine," Pediatrics 89#1: 67-77 ( January 1992).
3. Dr. Barry Zuckerman et al. "Effects of Maternal Marijuana and Cocaine Use on Fetal Growth," New England Journal of Medicine 320 #12: 762-8 (March 23, 1989); Dr. Ralph Hingson et al., "Effects of maternal drinking and marijuana use on fetal growth and development," Pediatrics 70: 539-46 (1982).
4. Nancy Day et al., "Prenatal Marijuana Use and Neonatal Outcome," Neurotoxicology and Teratology 13: 329-34 (1992).
5. Janice Hayes, Melanie Dreher and J. Kevin Nugent, "Newborn Outcomes With Maternal Marihuana Use in Jamaican Women," Pediatric Nursing 14 #2: 107-10 (Mar-Apr. 1988).
Myth: Marijuana Leads to Harder Drugs
There is no scientific evidence for the theory that marijuana is a "gateway" drug. The cannabis-using cultures in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America show no propensity for other drugs. The gateway theory took hold in the sixties, when marijuana became the leading new recreational drug. It was refuted by events in the eighties, when cocaine abuse exploded at the same time marijuana use declined.
As we have seen, there is evidence that cannabis may substitute for alcohol and other "hard" drugs. A recent survey by Dr. Patricia Morgan of the University of California at Berekeley found that a significant number of pot smokers and dealers switched to methamphetamine "ice" when Hawaii's marijuana eradication program created a shortage of pot.1 Dr. Morgan noted a similar phenomenon in California, where cocaine use soared in the wake of the CAMP helicopter eradication campaign.
The one way in which marijuana does lead to other drugs is through its illegality: persons who deal in marijuana are likely to deal in other illicit drugs as well.
Footnote
1. "Survey: Hawaii war on pot pushed users to 'ice,'" Honolulu Advertiser, April 1, 1994 p. 1.
Here's an idea... Go find a random sampling of 100 know-it-all, pot-smoking, 20-somethings. Let's put them through some tests to measure their problem solving ability. Let's keep track of them for a decade, and give them the same test. Let's do it again after another decade. Let's review the results and compare our findings with those of their non-pot-smoking peers. With all of the science behind this, do you really thing they'd be on par with each other? :thumbsup:
"All the science" :rofl:
At least, Hannity would bring reference-able facts and stats to the discussion to support his position. You've brought nothing to the table short of what's in your empty skull, and there really isn't much there... :blink:
Better? I can copy & paste links all day, but this post is long enough as it is. Because I have the cognitive ability to retain knowledge, utilize logic, and state my case without copying and pasting from a biased webpage, I didn't realize this was a requirement.
Why, yes... Yes, you are! :eyeroll:
By the way, how was the wedding yesterday? Did you escort the bride down the aisle? And, did you help him get dressed into his gown before the wedding?
Already addressed how insanely hypocritical you calling me an elitist is. Cue an arbitrary, completely irrelevant personal attack (or at least what was intended to be) when you have nothing relevant to say. Glad you're sticking to the script...
-
Bear with me. My response was so long it wouldn't let me post. I've tried stating my case succinctly, but GarMan won't accept any argument from me, so I have to copy & paste from other sources, like he does.
Oh yeah... You've done of helluva job stating your case. You just haven't provided any real facts to back your position. Until now, all you've posted is your opinions and perceptions. It must be an overwhelming stretch for you to share your "sources, like he does" so that we can come to our own conclusions. Thanks for extending that common courtesy to all of us little folks out here. :eyeroll:
This is evidence of your lack of cognitive ability. Tell me how a violent crimes over a drug deals would persist when you can buy marijuana at the package store, or at least from a licensed doctor. No, instead bring my age into the argument as if it were relevant at all. That's your M.O. though. Ignore facts, or anything really pertaining to the argument itself, and cling to whatever you possibly can to attack the credibility of whoever's arguing against you.
This is great. You hit-and-run posters make it personal, then you accuse the other guy of doing it. Nice... :thumbsup:
This meant nothing. You fail to point out how this is TYPICAL behavior in any way of marijuana use. You fail to distinguish how alcohol use is ANY BETTER when it comes to making people do insanely stupid things that can harm themselves and others. Instead, you talk about MY ignorant superiority, completely oblivious to the irony that this coming from the guy trying to argue that every one who has ever used marijuana is worthless burnout scum, and doing so by claiming that I can't possibly have any insight on the topic and all of my opinions are moot because I'm younger than you. Then, because you're backed into a corner you throw in a bonus slam at someone that shatters your stereotype by dogging an American Hero just because in your small mind doing so supports your particular argument.
It was a dumb article about an idiot. Get over it! I thought it was funny.
I never accused anyone who ever used of being "burnout scum". I just called them stupid. And, yes... Phelps was fucking stupid for the exact reasons that I have previously posted. Don't get your panties in a wad. You've selectively ignored many of my words in these posts, so don't play games by pushing this to silly extremes.
No, it can't... You haven't posted one fuckin' reference to support you pathetic opinion. Instead, you go trolling for "role models", and float the childish excuse of "if they did it, it must be safe" as sole support for your position. You've limited your support structure to your immediate circle of influences and your "vast" 26 years of experiences. You're the one incapable of any "self-thought". You don't know enough about the topic to have any credibility on it, and you've ignored every attempt to bring science and stats into the discussion. Do you really believe that your limited scope of influences qualifies you to be an "expert" on the matter? Now, that's fucking arrogant! :rofl:
First of all, I don't need a fucking scientific study to tell me that people do stupid shit when they're drunk. Are you arguing that no one has ever injured themselves while intoxicated from alcohol? Where is your study that supports this statistic?
Did I say that? Where did I say that? How can anyone with any sort of intelligence even suggest that I was arguing that point? :& You're the one who keeps on comparing alcohol to MJ.
One thing has become overwhelmingly obvious in this entire thread. You have a brush, and you're not afraid to use it. You've assembled this straw-man of some Republipuke concocted from your worst stereotypical perceptions and opinions about Conservatives and Republicans, and you jump at the opportunity to attack. The funny thing is that we probably agree on things more than we disagree, even on this topic, but you're so "hellbent" on disagreement that you're not going to let anything like that happen. :eyeroll:
However, since you're so hellbent on me providing a link, here's what 5 seconds of googling provided. Next time, I suggest you do the same.
Why? That doesn't make any sense. Why would I research items to support your position? :&
I'll get to the rest of this later. I have grown-up work to do...
-
Oh yeah... You've done of helluva job stating your case. You just haven't provided any real facts to back your position. Until now, all you've posted is your opinions and perceptions. It must be an overwhelming stretch for you to share your "sources, like he does" so that we can come to our own conclusions. Thanks for extending that common courtesy to all of us little folks out here. :eyeroll:
I didn't copy & paste from specific sources, because everything that was being said was common knowledge for anyone that has done five minutes of research on the topic. That's like asking me to provide a source that states the Earth is not flat. I wasn't going to insult your intelligence until you demanded it. Since you had such a strong opinion on the matter, I thought surely you would at least pretend to know what you're talking about.
This is great. You hit-and-run posters make it personal, then you accuse the other guy of doing it. Nice... :thumbsup:
Hit and run? Not that this is of any consequence, but I'm a founding member of this board and a moderator with the sixth highest post count on this board. Pointing this out seems silly and a waste of time, but this is another example of a blatant falsehood I'm burdened with disproving to you.
I made it personal? Please refer to post #34, only your second post in this thread. In it you asserted that I was "operating with limited cognitive ability" twice, attacked the moral fiber of my law school friends, along with everyone that pursued that career path, referred to my other friends as "more fucking kids", "young dumb punks", "clowns" and "young twirp pukes" and asserted that they were my "role models" (all themes you've referred to over and over again). What did I saw before this that was personal?
It was a dumb article about an idiot. Get over it! I thought it was funny.
You posted it as if to prove a point. You realized the fallacious nature of the reference, so now you're backpedaling by laughing it off as a joke.
I never accused anyone who ever used of being "burnout scum". I just called them stupid. And, yes... Phelps was fucking stupid for the exact reasons that I have previously posted. Don't get your panties in a wad. You've selectively ignored many of my words in these posts, so don't play games by pushing this to silly extremes.
Tell me one reason marijuana use makes you "stupider" than alcohol use. You aren't saying that college kids who consume alcohol on a weekly or monthly basis are going to amount to nothings "not on par with their peers." Remember, the whole argument here concerns the legality of marijuana use. Therefore any argument you make against marijuana, must not also be the case for alcohol, unless you advocate the outlawing of both. You, however, happily condone one, while adamantly condemning the other, despite all the evidence that alcohol is more the more dangerous of the two if anything.
Did I say that? Where did I say that? How can anyone with any sort of intelligence even suggest that I was arguing that point? :& You're the one who keeps on comparing alcohol to MJ.
You insinuated it here:
Again, I'd like to see some stats on that. And, this victimless/moral crimes argument is weak. Perhaps, if you grow your own for personal consumption, it's victimless. Oh, what's this? Victimless crime?
http://www.11alive.com/rss/rss_story.aspx?storyid=127572 (http://www.11alive.com/rss/rss_story.aspx?storyid=127572)
Pointing to one dumb pothead who abused an animal, as if this guy did this BECAUSE he was on pot, and that it makes people do things similar to this, and that the "victims" are the people (and animals in this case) that are unfortunate enough to be around when someone is partaking in marijuana use. Sarcastically referring to this as a "victimless crime", insinuates that this type of behavior is exclusive to marijuana use, and people are completely responsible when drunk off of alcohol.
One thing has become overwhelmingly obvious in this entire thread. You have a brush, and you're not afraid to use it. You've assembled this straw-man of some Republipuke concocted from your worst stereotypical perceptions and opinions about Conservatives and Republicans, and you jump at the opportunity to attack. The funny thing is that we probably agree on things more than we disagree, even on this topic, but you're so "hellbent" on disagreement that you're not going to let anything like that happen. :eyeroll:
Pot, meet kettle. I have deconstructed YOUR arguments. You have broadly brushed everyone who uses marijuana, in spite of your backpedaling now.
Why? That doesn't make any sense. Why would I research items to support your position? :&
Heaven forbid you research a topic before shooting off at the hip, violently debating the side that you inherited from your predefined cookie cutter party line, without bothering with your own individual thought.
-
I love lead paint chips.
With a fine Salsa dip.
-
I didn't copy & paste from specific sources, because everything that was being said was common knowledge for anyone that has done five minutes of research on the topic. That's like asking me to provide a source that states the Earth is not flat. I wasn't going to insult your intelligence until you demanded it. Since you had such a strong opinion on the matter, I thought surely you would at least pretend to know what you're talking about.
Far from common knowledge... You know that, or at least, you should. If it were "common knowledge" as you put it, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because your beloved pot would already be legalized. Right?
Hit and run? Not that this is of any consequence, but I'm a founding member of this board and a moderator with the sixth highest post count on this board. Pointing this out seems silly and a waste of time, but this is another example of a blatant falsehood I'm burdened with disproving to you.
Oh yes... YOU are a hit-and-run poster. How many times have you jumped into the political forum to muddy the water in a particular thread and disappear to never post in that thread again? I've lost count... Of course, I know that you're a moderator. BIG F'n DEAL! :taunt:
I made it personal? Please refer to post #34, only your second post in this thread. In it you asserted that I was "operating with limited cognitive ability" twice, attacked the moral fiber of my law school friends, along with everyone that pursued that career path, referred to my other friends as "more fucking kids", "young dumb punks", "clowns" and "young twirp pukes" and asserted that they were my "role models" (all themes you've referred to over and over again). What did I saw before this that was personal?
AND, YOU didn't think that using words like "ridiculous" and "ignorance" in your post #33 to me, which comes before #34 by the way, was personal? What? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME???
AND, IF I'M SO FUCKING IGNORANT, DON'T YOU THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE SHARED SOME OF THAT "COMMON KNOWLEDGE" WITH ME? I mean you're so fucking brilliant as a moderator of this FUCKING board, one would think that you'd FUCKING know better!
You posted it as if to prove a point. You realized the fallacious nature of the reference, so now you're backpedaling by laughing it off as a joke.
I posted it to demonstrate the absurdity of this. It was another worthless jab to tease and provoke. Do you really think that I, of all people, care about kittens? You don't know me. :thumbsup:
Tell me one reason marijuana use makes you "stupider" than alcohol use. You aren't saying that college kids who consume alcohol on a weekly or monthly basis are going to amount to nothings "not on par with their peers." Remember, the whole argument here concerns the legality of marijuana use. Therefore any argument you make against marijuana, must not also be the case for alcohol, unless you advocate the outlawing of both. You, however, happily condone one, while adamantly condemning the other, despite all the evidence that alcohol is more the more dangerous of the two if anything.
First of all, most of that is your argument, not mine. I never said any of that. My original argument was only about MJ. You're the one who is constantly trying to compare it to alcohol. Why don't we compare it to saturated fats or McDonald's Cheeseburgers? That would make about as much sense. The last thing this country needs is another drug to fuck with the masses. The country's in enough of a decline already, and you guys want to introduce another drug. That just doesn't make any sense to me.
You insinuated it here:
Pointing to one dumb pothead who abused an animal, as if this guy did this BECAUSE he was on pot, and that it makes people do things similar to this, and that the "victims" are the people (and animals in this case) that are unfortunate enough to be around when someone is partaking in marijuana use. Sarcastically referring to this as a "victimless crime", insinuates that this type of behavior is exclusive to marijuana use, and people are completely responsible when drunk off of alcohol.
WOW... Take a Pamprin and get some sleep. You put a whole story together and brought up things that I haven't even debated in this thread. You're broad sweeping those strokes with that brush of yours, again.
Pot, meet kettle. I have deconstructed YOUR arguments. You have broadly brushed everyone who uses marijuana, in spite of your backpedaling now.
I haven't backpedaled on anything in here. I never used terms like "burnout scum" or anything like that. You have taken much of what I said, multiplied it by 100 and pushed it to silly extremes, and you keep doing that. You also keep fighting with this Republipuke straw-man that you've built up in your mind by assigning these perceived stereotypical values to me and challenging me on them. I can't defend them, because I don't have those silly values or beliefs. Maybe, you should layoff the bong a little.
Heaven forbid you research a topic before shooting off at the hip, violently debating the side that you inherited from your predefined cookie cutter party line, without bothering with your own individual thought.
There you go again... Paintbrush meets straw-man. Look, I have the beliefs that I have because of my own research and experiences. I said it once before that there's enough research on both sides of this debate to share and review. You didn't post one fucking thing to support your position until today. The points in my original post stand. There is no party line anything there. MJ fucks with the brain. How much consumption is necessary to cause this? I don't really know, but I don't think that anybody knows for certain. Why take the fucking risk? That's it... Nothing more... Nothing less... Nothing about alcohol... Not even anything about kittens...
-
The last thing this country needs is another drug to fuck with the masses. The country's in enough of a decline already, and you guys want to introduce another drug. That just doesn't make any sense to me.
This is the crux of the argument for me. Pot has already been introduced. People are using it now, and have been using it for a long time. I'm of the opinion that if people want to smoke pot, they will do so, whether it's legal or illegal. Why not let otherwise law-abiding citizens have a say-so over what they want to put into their bodies? Why piss away billions of dollars fighting a drug that is no more harmful than some substances that are legal, when instead you could be bringing in millions (if not billions) of tax dollars regulating the drug?
In my opinion, it's not the gubment's place to tell me what I can and can not do to myself, as long as I'm not harming others. Then again, it's not the gubment's place to do a lot of the things they do, but that's another argument for another day.
-
The only X factor that I can think of that makes me question it would be this, whether you're for legalization or against it:
Would the number of users stay the same, expand slightly, or explode? I think that most penalties for illegal use are horseshit most of the time, or ridiculously harsh and should be reviewed. However, I'm not sure that legalizing it and it becoming more readily available to certain age groups and people that shouldn't have their hands on it is a good idea either.
I find myself in the middle of this one... I think with the right distribution and regulation, legalization is an interesting argument.
-
The only X factor that I can think of that makes me question it would be this, whether you're for legalization or against it:
Would the number of users stay the same, expand slightly, or explode? I think that most penalties for illegal use are horseshit most of the time, or ridiculously harsh and should be reviewed. However, I'm not sure that legalizing it and it becoming more readily available to certain age groups and people that shouldn't have their hands on it is a good idea either.
I find myself in the middle of this one... I think with the right distribution and regulation, legalization is an interesting argument.
It may indeed slightly increase. I myself would partake more often than I currently do, which is next to never. However, use of other more dangerous drugs, alcohol included, would decrease, for a net of around the same. I, for example, may substitute my Saturday night in which I normally drink for instead smoking. At the very least then, I'd be alternating the damage I was doing to my body instead of just drilling my liver. Other more serious drug use would decline as well. Look to countries with legalized marijuana for evidence of that. For one, the same dealers who sell you pot, often also sell harder drugs, and they often aren't hesitant to upgrade you. If pot were purchased at the store, this temptation wouldn't be present.
To repost:
Myth: Marijuana Prohibition Improves Public Safety
There is no evidence that the prohibition of marijuana reduces the net social risk of accidents. On the contrary, recent studies suggest that marijuana may actually be beneficial in that it substitutes for alcohol and other, more dangerous drugs. Research by Karyn Model found that states with marijuana decriminalization had lower overall drug abuse rates than others; another study by Frank Chaloupka found decriminalization states have lower accident rates too.1 In Alaska, accident rates held constant or declined following the legalization of personal use of marijuana.2 In Holland, authorities believe that cannabis has contributed to an overall decline in opiate abuse. Recent U.S. government statistics show that the highest rates of cocaine abuse in the West were in Nevada and Arizona, the states with the toughest marijuana laws.
Footnotes
1. Peter Passell, "Less Marijuana, More Alcohol?" New York Times June 17, 1992.
2. Michael Dunham, "When the Smoke Clears," Reason March 1983 pp.33-6.
Myth: Marijuana Leads to Harder Drugs
There is no scientific evidence for the theory that marijuana is a "gateway" drug. The cannabis-using cultures in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America show no propensity for other drugs. The gateway theory took hold in the sixties, when marijuana became the leading new recreational drug. It was refuted by events in the eighties, when cocaine abuse exploded at the same time marijuana use declined.
As we have seen, there is evidence that cannabis may substitute for alcohol and other "hard" drugs. A recent survey by Dr. Patricia Morgan of the University of California at Berekeley found that a significant number of pot smokers and dealers switched to methamphetamine "ice" when Hawaii's marijuana eradication program created a shortage of pot.1 Dr. Morgan noted a similar phenomenon in California, where cocaine use soared in the wake of the CAMP helicopter eradication campaign.
The one way in which marijuana does lead to other drugs is through its illegality: persons who deal in marijuana are likely to deal in other illicit drugs as well.
Footnote
1. "Survey: Hawaii war on pot pushed users to 'ice,'" Honolulu Advertiser, April 1, 1994 p. 1.
-
Well, shit, at least we know that this is a popular debate. Excellent arguments abound from both sides. I'm not sure I've ever seen a topic go 5-6 pages in this forum. We all need to get together and discuss it further!while passing around a gigantic joint so we can all get as high as a giraffe's asshole
-
Well, shit, at least we know that this is a popular debate. Excellent arguments abound from both sides. I'm not sure I've ever seen a topic go 5-6 pages in this forum. We all need to get together and discuss it further!while passing around a gigantic joint so we can all get as high as a giraffe's asshole
"Oh man, did you get pink eye too?"
"No, I'm just really HIIIIIIIIGH."
-
I find myself in the middle of this one... I think with the right distribution and regulation, legalization is an interesting argument.
Actually, I think I'm with you on that one...
But, I still find myself siding with the leave-it-alone argument. I don't think the penalties for minor possession are that significant, unless it's a multiple repeat offense scenario. Of course, by "minor" I mean a small amount... Only enough for personal consumption. From my understanding, it's typically the "intent to distribute" that lands people in jail, but I'm open to review info on that if anybody has it handy.
-
Actually, I think I'm with you on that one...
But, I still find myself siding with the leave-it-alone argument. I don't think the penalties for minor possession are that significant, unless it's a multiple repeat offense scenario. Of course, by "minor" I mean a small amount... Only enough for personal consumption. From my understanding, it's typically the "intent to distribute" that lands people in jail, but I'm open to review info on that if anybody has it handy.
Again, easily researchable.
http://www.passyourdrugtest.com/Marijuana-Laws/alabama.htm (http://www.passyourdrugtest.com/Marijuana-Laws/alabama.htm)
In Alabama, the least harsh penalty is a $2,000 fine and up to a year in prison.
And as mentioned, you lose your job if they find out, whether that be from your criminal record or from a drug test.
I found this history of its prohibition interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_marijuana_in_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_marijuana_in_the_United_States)
DuPont, William Randolph Hearst, and hemp
The decision of the United States Congress to pass the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was based on hearings,[2] reports[22] and in part on testimony derived from articles in newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst, who had significant financial interests in the timber industry, which manufactured his newsprint.[23]
Cannabis activist Jack Herer has researched DuPont and in his 1985 book The Emperor Wears No Clothes, Herer concluded DuPont played a large role in the criminalization of cannabis. In 1938, DuPont patented the processes for creating plastics from coal and oil and a new process for creating paper from wood pulp. If hemp would have been largely exploited, Herer believes it would have likely been used to make paper and plastic (nylon), and may have hurt DuPont’s profits. Andrew Mellon of the Mellon Bank was DuPont's chief financial backer and was also the Secretary of Treasury under the Hoover administration. Mellon appointed Harry J. Anslinger, who later became his nephew-in-law, as the head of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (FBNDD) and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN), where Anslinger stayed until 1962.[24]
In 1916, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) chief scientists Jason L. Merrill and Lyster H. Dewe created paper made from hemp pulp, which they concluded was "favorable in comparison with those used with pulp wood in USDA Bulletin No. 404."[25] In his book Herer summarized the findings of Bulletin No. 404:[26]
USDA Bulletin No. 404, reported that one acre of hemp, in annual rotation over a 20-year period, would produce as much pulp for paper as 4.1 acres (17,000 m2) of trees being cut down over the same 20-year period. This process would use only 1/4 to 1/7 as much polluting sulfur-based acid chemicals to break down the glue-like lignin that binds the fibers of the pulp, or even none at all using soda ash. The problem of dioxin contamination of rivers is avoided in the hemp paper making process, which does not need to use chlorine bleach (as the wood pulp paper making process requires) but instead safely substitutes hydrogen peroxide in the bleaching process. ... If the new (1916) hemp pulp paper process were legal today, it would soon replace about 70% of all wood pulp paper, including computer printout paper, corrugated boxes and paper bags.
Hemp was a relatively easy target because factories already had made large investments in equipment to handle cotton, wool, and linen, but there were relatively small investments in hemp production. Big technological improvements in the wood pulp industry were invented in the 1930s; for example the recovery boiler allowed kraft mills to recycle almost all of their pulping chemicals, and other improvements came later. There was also a misconception hemp had an intoxicating effect because it has the same active substance, THC, which is in potent cannabis strains; however, hemp only has minimal amount of THC when compared to recreational cannabis strains.
An alternative explanation for Anslinger's opinion's about hemp is that he believed that a tax on cannabis could be easier to supervise if it included hemp and that he had reports from experiments with mechanical harvesting of hemp reporting that the machines was no success and reports about cannabis farms.[27]
"The existence of the old 1934-1935 crop of harvested hemp on the fields of southern Minnesota is a menace to society in that it is being used by traffickers in marihuana as a source of supply."[28]
"they were able to cut only a part of the Tribune Farm crop by machine, two thirds of it they did by hand with a sharp hand cuttertuff".[29]
An argument for the alternative theory is that hemp was not an alternative as material in the new commercial products from DuPont using oil or coal as raw material, the nylon-bristled toothbrush (1938) followed more famously by women's “nylons” stockings (1940). Nylon was intended to be a synthetic replacement for silk not hemp.
This is basically like the CEO of Pepsi-Cola convincing lawmakers that Coca-Cola was a danger to society. He ran a yellow journalism blitz through the papers he owned to eliminate the competition, and it worked.
-
Again, easily researchable.
http://www.passyourdrugtest.com/Marijuana-Laws/alabama.htm (http://www.passyourdrugtest.com/Marijuana-Laws/alabama.htm)
In Alabama, the least harsh penalty is a $2,000 fine and up to a year in prison.
And as mentioned, you lose your job if they find out, whether that be from your criminal record or from a drug test.
That's not exactly what I wanted to see. I was looking for actual stats on convictions for "minor" possession.
Up to 2.2 pounds... WOW! That's significantly greater than the personal consumption amount that I was suggesting. You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that it was just for your own use. In my opinion, a fine of up to $2000 and up to a year in jail is nothing for toting 2.2 pounds of pot around town.
There are pretty tough penalties for a lot of things, but you rarely get the max unless you're a repeat offender. Take DUI for instance... You almost NEVER get the max on the first offense unless there were some other gross circumstances. Just something to consider...
-
Up to 2.2 pounds... WOW! That's significantly greater than the personal consumption amount that I was suggesting. You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that it was just for your own use. In my opinion, a fine of up to $2000 and up to a year in jail is nothing for toting 2.2 pounds of pot around town.
Yeah. 2.2 lbs is considerable. Which is why if you have 2.2 or more you're REALLY fucked.
The charge is for up to 2.2 lbs, so if you are caught with a dime or even an empty pipe, that's the penalty you face.
http://www.montgomerymarijuanachargeattorney.com/Marijuana_Penalties.html (http://www.montgomerymarijuanachargeattorney.com/Marijuana_Penalties.html)
MARIJUANA DRUG CRIME STATUTE
Code of Alabama §13A-12-213. Unlawful possession of marijuana in the first degree.
(a) A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of marijuana in the first degree if, except as otherwise authorized:
(1) He possesses marijuana for other than personal use; or
(2) He possesses marijuana for his personal use only after having been previously convicted of unlawful possession of marijuana in the second degree or unlawful possession of marijuana for his personal use only.
(b) Unlawful possession of marijuana in the first degree is a Class C felony.
Code of Ala. §13A-12-214. Unlawful possession of marijuana in the second degree
(a) A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of marijuana in the second degree if, except as otherwise authorized, he possesses marijuana for his personal use only.
(b) Unlawful possession of marijuana in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor.
So if you get busted a second time, you no longer fall in the misdemeanor category.
Also, read the whole chart. The "more than 2.2 lbs" penalty of 1-10 years and $5,000 is only if they determine it is for personal use. Probably not issued often.
If you cultivate your own, EVEN 2.2 POUNDS OR LESS, that's a MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCE of 3 years in jail, and a $25,000 fine. The more you're growing, the stricter the penalty, up to a MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCE of life in prison.
The law is nowhere near as lax as you are suggesting.
-
The law is nowhere near as lax as you are suggesting.
The actual law is fairly strict, its just a matter of the judge deciding whether to enforce the POM 1st charge on your second, third, etc POM 2nd charge. Alot of the times the judge will not enforce the statute. It really depends on the judge, defendant, etc.
I'm really not sure which side of this argument I would be on. I really think the argument of marijuanna vs. alcohol has some merit. We run across alot of dumbasses, and by far, the drunk ones are the worst. Usually the guys you pop for POM 2nd aren't combative, uncooperative, etc. A little annoying sometimes, yes. But the drunks are usually the ones that you have problems out of. Example, a guy came in last month and was drunk as hell. He ran off the road and hit a house on stilts across from the beach. He took out three 10x10 stilts with his car and almost caused the house to collapse. He then became combative with the officers, who then had to tase him repeatedly just to make him get out of his vehicle (drive stun, no probes). Even coming into the jail while handcuffed he was head butting officers, then going nuts in his cell.
I've seen alot of people come in and out of the jail. In my opinion, alcohol is much worse than marijuanna. But marijuanna isn't that great for you either. I'm not so sure that I'm ready to say it should be legalized quite yet, but it sure is a strain on the judicial system. If the government could come up with some sort of regulation that is better than the current regs on alcohol and tobacco, maybe I would be on the bandwagon. I'm just really middle of the fence on it. There is a good argument for both sides of it. I think its just been a taboo subject for so long it would be difficult to get any kind of legislation on it passed.
-
We've all been brainwashed for so long that mj is sooooo bad that most folks just don't do the research and the ones that still smoke it, keep it very quiet. But there are many, many folks out there that still smoke it. The majority of these are hard working very successful citizens. They enjoy relaxing with a joint every now and then. To take these folks and prosecute for possession and have that on their record is ridiculous. To put someone in jail for possession is even more ridiculous. When the jails are full of victimless offenders dealing with mj to the point that violent criminals are released due to capacity issues, we have a serious problem. If a person is found in possession of a lot of MJ, then that person should just have everything they own taken form them and they should be tagged to do community service. But to throw them in prison with violent offenders is absolutely stupid. Not to mention, with no jail time, these offenders then become a less violent target for the police. Make it so that a mandatory 5 years exist when you have a weapon while possessing more than the limit and that also will cut down on the violence. Allow folks to grow it and sell it for personal use and pay taxes on lit just as we do alcohol and cigs. The penalties for selling to a minor should be just as severe as they are today for alcohol. Regulate the industry so that the product is pure and not laced. Therefore, you cut down on the PCP laden mj. There are many things we could do that would ease the public burden in this area. We still have the programs that are anti-alcohol, just add MJ to the list also. The initial bump in usage may spike, but it will soon level off the the same usage as before. I've known many folks that have died due to the misuse of alcohol. But I know of no-one that has died from mj. I know many folks that still enjoy it today and they are still very heavy producers in the world of business.
The gateway drug argument is not really as strong as some would like us to believe. It has been drilled onto our head so much, that we tend to blow it out of proportion. A person prone to drug addiction will find some kind of drug to fulfill their void. It will not matter if they start with alcohol or mj.
And I am no libertarian, nor have I EVER done ANY illegal drug. I haven't even intentionally inhaled the 2nd hand smoke from mj. At the first signs of the smell, I left. But I will not condemn others for responsibly enjoying a product that is no more destructive or addictive than the alcohol that I enjoy. And putting mj users in jail is a condemnation that is hypocritical in today's society.
-
We've all been brainwashed for so long that mj is sooooo bad that most folks just don't do the research and the ones that still smoke it, keep it very quiet. But there are many, many folks out there that still smoke it. The majority of these are hard working very successful citizens. They enjoy relaxing with a joint every now and then. To take these folks and prosecute for possession and have that on their record is ridiculous. To put someone in jail for possession is even more ridiculous. When the jails are full of victimless offenders dealing with mj to the point that violent criminals are released due to capacity issues, we have a serious problem. If a person is found in possession of a lot of MJ, then that person should just have everything they own taken form them and they should be tagged to do community service. But to throw them in prison with violent offenders is absolutely stupid. Not to mention, with no jail time, these offenders then become a less violent target for the police. Make it so that a mandatory 5 years exist when you have a weapon while possessing more than the limit and that also will cut down on the violence. Allow folks to grow it and sell it for personal use and pay taxes on lit just as we do alcohol and cigs. The penalties for selling to a minor should be just as severe as they are today for alcohol. Regulate the industry so that the product is pure and not laced. Therefore, you cut down on the PCP laden mj. There are many things we could do that would ease the public burden in this area. We still have the programs that are anti-alcohol, just add MJ to the list also. The initial bump in usage may spike, but it will soon level off the the same usage as before. I've known many folks that have died due to the misuse of alcohol. But I know of no-one that has died from mj. I know many folks that still enjoy it today and they are still very heavy producers in the world of business.
The gateway drug argument is not really as strong as some would like us to believe. It has been drilled onto our head so much, that we tend to blow it out of proportion. A person prone to drug addiction will find some kind of drug to fulfill their void. It will not matter if they start with alcohol or mj.
And I am no libertarian, nor have I EVER done ANY illegal drug. I haven't even intentionally inhaled the 2nd hand smoke from mj. At the first signs of the smell, I left. But I will not condemn others for responsibly enjoying a product that is no more destructive or addictive than the alcohol that I enjoy. And putting mj users in jail is a condemnation that is hypocritical in today's society.
I am shocked by your position on this. I can actually agree 100% with you on this one.
-
I am shocked by your position on this. I can actually agree 100% with you on this one.
You said it before I could.
I will respect your opinion on other issues more now, knowing that you're not a parrot.
-
CCTAU said exactly how I feel about the situation. I too have never done it, but I don't condemn people that do. It just doesn't matter to me. I wanted to reply with something like CCTAU but I was lazy...
-
The law is nowhere near as lax as you are suggesting.
It's not the law; it's the enforcement of that law. You know that. Laws always sound tough on paper, but in practice, our legal system walks all over them.
As an example, one of the local drunks at my neighborhood bar recieved a second DUI in 18 months and had to spend 30 days in jail. That seems tough when compared to others in the same bar having similar convictions and only spending 5 days in jail on weekend duty. Some can afford better lawyers (aka lie-yers) than others. By the way, the guy who spent 30 days in jail lost his job too.
-
I really think the argument of marijuanna vs. alcohol has some merit.
I don't, mainly because those arguing for MJ can't do so without a disparaging comparison to something else that is already perfectly legal. If the merits, safety, benefits or whatever you believe about MJ could stand on their own, MJ would already be legal. That's why I find the comparison arguments to be a flawed postion.
-
I don't, mainly because those arguing for MJ can't do so without a disparaging comparison to something else that is already perfectly legal. If the merits, safety, benefits or whatever you believe about MJ could stand on their own, MJ would already be legal. That's why I find the comparison arguments to be a flawed postion.
This is ridiculous, sorry.
Merits, benefits, be damned. It doesn't have to cure cancer for it to NOT be outlawed. The burden is on those that feel it should be outlawed to prove why it is more dangerous than the many many many substances that remain legal.
From now on, those in possession of red M&M's will face serious jail time. It's damn near that arbitrary. Don't argue about how they're just as harmless as the green ones. This has nothing to do with the green ones! You must explain the medical benefits of those damn red ones!
The point is, there has to be some hint of consistency with the law. It makes absolutely no sense to celebrate one and outlaw the other, especially when the outlawed one is in virtually every way less harmful than the legal one. What the hell are laws for anyway? Aren't they supposed to be to protect us? How are we staying safer by people drinking instead of smoking? It's not only a valid argument, it's THE argument.
You don't want to compare the two (now) because there is no comparison. We can't discuss it because you can't be on the losing end of an argument.
-
This is ridiculous, sorry.
Not at all. It's just flawed logic on the pro-MJ crowd. You know that. It's why they lose or lack credibilty for an honest discussion. You could probably argue that dog shit is not as bad as some of that make-believe baby food out there. Should that justify us feeding dog shit to our babies? It makes about as much sense.
Merits, benefits, be damned. It doesn't have to cure cancer for it to NOT be outlawed. The burden is on those that feel it should be outlawed to prove why it is more dangerous than the many many many substances that remain legal.
MJ is already illegal. We're not trying to make it illegal.
The point is, there has to be some hint of consistency with the law. It makes absolutely no sense...
Why don't we start with the tax code first? If you want to talk about consistency with the laws and all...
You don't want to compare the two (now) because there is no comparison. We can't discuss it because you can't be on the losing end of an argument.
I'm not debating that, but is alcohol really part of the argument? Is that really all you have? Why bring it up? It's just a naive silly position. If Tommy's mommy bought him a Gameboy, your mommy should by you one too. That's the same silly logic.
-
Well, shit, at least we know that this is a popular debate. Excellent arguments abound from both sides. I'm not sure I've ever seen a topic go 5-6 pages in this forum. We all need to get together and discuss it further!while passing around a gigantic joint so we can all get as high as a giraffe's asshole
I still think that we have a hippie infestation problem on The X.
-
I don't, mainly because those arguing for MJ can't do so without a disparaging comparison to something else that is already perfectly legal. If the merits, safety, benefits or whatever you believe about MJ could stand on their own, MJ would already be legal. That's why I find the comparison arguments to be a flawed postion.
This is unbelievably weak sauce.
-
This is unbelievably weak sauce.
Actually, comparison arguments like this don't usually hold any water. At least, they didn't in the past. The core argument is legalization of MJ, not the safety of MJ compared to other substances. Bringing up other substances is just a diversionary tactic used to cloud the debate. Am I really the only one who sees that? It used to be common sense, but I suppose our public school system (gubm'et indoctrination centers) has failed again. The downbreeding of America continues...
-
Actually, comparison arguments like this don't usually hold any water. At least, they didn't in the past. The core argument is legalization of MJ, not the safety of MJ compared to other substances. Bringing up other substances is just a diversionary tactic used to cloud the debate. Am I really the only one who sees that? It used to be common sense, but I suppose our public school system (gubm'et indoctrination centers) has failed again. The downbreeding of America continues...
Alcohol was once illegal. Now, it is legal. What changed about the effects/benefits of legalization/etc. of alcohol between those two eras? I mean besides nothing.
Anyone who has ever partaken in both is fully aware of the lesser dehabilitative effects of marijuana. Studies have shown it and this is part of the argument. Your argument that if mj should be legal it already would be is comical to say the least. I mean using that logic we could easily say that from this point forward no laws should be added or taken away because all laws are just and any laws that should be there are already there. That is the next car in your logic train. Mj isn't legal mainly because of the lumber/paper industry and bible thumping idiots who would rather jail people than let them live freely when it does not affect others.
-
Alcohol was once illegal. Now, it is legal. What changed about the effects/benefits of legalization/etc. of alcohol between those two eras? I mean besides nothing.
Regulation... Willingness to regulate a controlled substance... And, so on...
Anyone who has ever partaken in both is fully aware of the lesser dehabilitative effects of marijuana. Studies have shown it and this is part of the argument.
Alcohol is only part of the argument because the pro-MJ side tries to make it part of the argument. Why not compare it to Advil or Tylenol (Actually, there's some work already out there...)? The "lesser dehabilitative effects" really depends on the grade, quality, THC content, level of consumption and personal affect on the individual. In other words, it's a serious stretch to make that claim.
Your argument that if mj should be legal it already would be is comical to say the least. I mean using that logic we could easily say that from this point forth no laws should be added or taken away because all laws are just and any laws that should be there are already there.
WOW... Did I ever say that? Do you think that I even insinuated that? (PUT THE BONG DOWN!)
Actually, what I really suggested was... If all of that so-called "evidence" and "scientific fact" was as "common knowledge" as much as others have suggested in this thread, there'd be no debate on the topic because pot would already be legal. The "common knowledge" theory suggests that everyone already knows that it's as safe as water, and it's only those evil supernatural forces preventing it from being legal. It must be those paper people and bible thumbers... Yeah, that's it! :rofl:
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030039&ct=1 (http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030039&ct=1)
References sited...
Hall WD, Pacula RL (2003) Cannabis use and dependence: Public health and public policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 298 p.
Degenhardt L, Lynskey M, Hall WD (2000) Cohort trends in the age of initiation of drug use in Australia. Aust N Z J Public Health 24:421–426.
Monshouwer K, Smit F, de Graaf R, van Os J, Vollebergh W (2005) First cannabis use: Does onset shift to younger ages? Findings from 1988 to 2003 from the Dutch National School Survey on Substance Use. Addiction 100:963–970.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW]. (2003) Alcohol and other drug treatment services in Australia 2001–02: Report on the National Minimum Data Set. Canberra (Australia): AIHW. 98 p.
Dutch National Alcohol and Drug Information System. (2004) Treatment demand of cannabis clients in outpatient addiction care in the Netherlands (1994–2001). LADIS Bulletin Available: http://www.ivv.nl/content/_files/LADIS_Bulletin_Cannabis_april_2004_eng.pdf. Accessed 19 December 2005.
Adams IB, Martin BR (1996) Cannabis: Pharmacology and toxicology in animals and humans. Addiction 91:1585–1614.
Maldonado R (2002) Study of cannabinoid dependence in animals. Pharmacol Ther 95:153–164.
Cook SA, Lowe JA, Martin BR (1998) CB1 receptor antagonist precipitates withdrawal in mice exposed to delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 285:1150–1156.
Copeland J, Swift W, Rees V (2001) Clinical profile of participants in a brief intervention program for cannabis use disorder. J Subst Abuse Treat 20:45–52.
Stephens RS, Roffman RA, Simpson EE (1994) Treating adult marijuana dependence—A test of the relapse prevention model. J Consult Clin Psychol 62:92–99.
Swift W, Hall WD, Copeland J (1998) Characteristics of long-term cannabis users in Sydney, Australia. Eur Addict Res 4:190–197.
Crowley TJ, Macdonald MJ, Whitmore EA, Mikulich SK (1998) Cannabis dependence, withdrawal, and reinforcing effects among adolescents with conduct symptoms and substance use disorders. Drug Alcohol Depend 50:27–37.
Tims FM, Dennis ML, Hamilton N, Buchan BJ, Diamond G, et al. (2002) Characteristics and problems of 600 adolescent cannabis abusers in outpatient treatment. Addiction 97:46–57.
Robins LN, Reiger DA, editors (1991) Psychiatric disorders in America: The Epidemiological Catchment Area Study. New York: The Free Press. 449 p.
Anthony JC, Warner L, Kessler R (1994) Comparative epidemiology of dependence on tobacco, alcohol, controlled substances and inhalants: Basic findings from the National Comorbidity Survey. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 2:244–268.
Hwu HG, Compton WM (1994) Comparison of major epidemiological surveys using the Diagnostic Interview Schedule. Int Rev Psychiatry 6:309–327.
Russell JM, Newman SC, Bland RC (1994) Drug abuse and dependence. Acta Psychiatr Scand 89:54–62.
Wells J, Bushnell J, Joyce PR, Oakley-Browne M, Hornblow A (1992) Problems with alcohol, drugs and gambling in Christchurch, New Zealand. In: Abbot M, Evans K, editors. Alcohol and drug dependence and disorders of impulse control Auckland (New Zealand): Alcohol Liquor Advisory Council. pp 3–13.
Hall WD, Teesson M, Lynskey M, Degenhardt L (1999) The 12-month prevalence of substance use and ICD-10 substance use disorders in Australian adults: Findings from the National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being. Addiction 94:1541–1550.
Chen CY, O'Brien MS, Anthony JC (2005) Who becomes cannabis dependent soon after onset of use? Epidemiological evidence from the United States: 2000–2001. Drug Alcohol Depend 79:11–22.
Coffey C, Carlin JB, Lynskey M, Li N, Patton GC (2003) Adolescent precursors of cannabis dependence: Findings from the Victorian Adolescent Health Cohort Study. Br J Psychiatry 182:330–336.
Budney AJ, Moore BA (2002) Development and consequences of cannabis dependence. J Clin Pharmacol 42:S28–S33.
MacLeod J, Oakes R, Copello A, Crome I, Egger M, et al. (2004) The psychosocial consequences of use of cannabis and other illicit drugs: Systematic review of longitudinal, general population studies. Lancet 363:1579–1588.
Morral AR, McCaffrey DF, Paddock SM (2002) Reassessing the marijuana gateway effect. Addiction 97:1493–1504.
Kandel DB (1975) Stages in adolescent involvement in drug use. Science 190:912–914.
Kandel DB, Yamaguchi K (2002) Stages of drug involvement in the U. S. population. In: Kandel DB, editor. Stages and pathways of drug involvement: Examining the gateway hypothesis New York: Cambridge University Press. pp 65–89.
Kandel DB (1984) Marijuana users in young adulthood. Arch Gen Psychiatry 41:200–209.
Hall WD, Lynskey M (2005) Is cannabis a gateway drug? Testing hypotheses about the relationship between cannabis use and the use of other illicit drugs. Drug Alcohol Rev 24:39–48.
Gardner EL (1999) Cannabinoid interaction with brain reward systems. In: Nahas G, Sutin KM, Harvey D, Agurell S, editors. Marihuana and medicine Towa (New Jersey): Humana Press. pp 187–205.
Manzanares J, Corchero J, Romero J, Fernandez-Ruiz JJ, Ramos JA, et al. (1999) Pharmacological and biochemical interactions between opioids and cannabinoids. Trends Pharmacol Sci 20:287–294.
Tanda G, Pontieri FE, Di Chiara G (1997) Cannabinoid and heroin activation of mesolimbic dopamine transmission by a common mu1 opioid receptor mechanism. Science 276:2048–2050.
Agrawal A, Neale MC, Prescott CA, Kendler KS (2004) Cannabis and other illicit drugs: Comorbid use and abuse/dependence in males and females. Behav Genet 34:217–228.
Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ (2000) Does cannabis use encourage other forms of illicit drug use? Addiction 95:505–520.
Lynskey MT, Heath AC, Bucholz KK, Slutske WS (2003) Escalation of drug use in early-onset cannabis users vs co-twin controls. JAMA 289:427–433.
Agrawal A, Neale MC, Prescott CA, Kendler KS (2004) A twin study of early cannabis use and subsequent use and abuse/dependence of other illicit drugs. Psychol Med 34:1227–1237.
Tien AY, Anthony JC (1990) Epidemiological analysis of alcohol and drug use as risk factors for psychotic experiences. J Nerv Ment Dis 178:473–480.
Thomas H (1996) A community survey of adverse effects of cannabis use. Drug Alcohol Depend 42:201–207.
Degenhardt L, Hall WD (2001) The association between psychosis and problematical drug use among Australian adults: Findings from the National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being. Psychol Med 31:659–668.
Warner R, Taylor D, Wright J, Sloat A, Springett G, et al. (1994) Substance use among the mentally ill: Prevalence, reasons for use, and effects on illness. Am J Orthopsychiatry 64:30–39.
Hambrecht M, Hafner H (1996) Substance abuse and the onset of schizophrenia. Biol Psychiatry 40:1155–1163.
Mueser KT, Bellack AS, Blanchard JJ (1992) Comorbidity of schizophrenia and substance abuse: Implications for treatment. J Consult Clin Psychol 60:845–856.
Thornicroft G (1990) Cannabis and psychosis: Is there epidemiological evidence for association? Br J Psychiatry 157:25–33.
Andreasson S, Engstrom A, Allebeck P, Rydberg U (1987) Cannabis and schizophrenia: A longitudinal study of Swedish conscripts. Lancet 2:1483–1486.
Zammit S, Allebeck P, Andreasson S, Lundberg I, Lewis G (2002) Self reported cannabis use as a risk factor for schizophrenia in Swedish conscripts of 1969: Historical cohort study. BMJ 325:1199–1201.
van Os J, Bak M, Hanssen M, Bijl RV, de Graaf R, et al. (2002) Cannabis use and psychosis: A longitudinal population-based study. Am J Epidemiol 156:319–327.
Henquet C, Krabbendam L, Spauwen J, Kaplan C, Lieb R, et al. (2005) Prospective cohort study of cannabis use, predisposition for psychosis, and psychotic symptoms in young people. BMJ 330:11.
Arseneault L, Cannon M, Poulton R, Murray R, Caspi A, et al. (2002) Cannabis use in adolescence and risk for adult psychosis: Longitudinal prospective study. BMJ 325:1212–1213.
Fergusson DM, Horwood JL, Swain-Campbell NR (2003) Cannabis dependence and psychotic symptoms in young people. Psychol Med 33:15–21.
Semple DM, McIntosh A, Lawrie SM (2005) Cannabis as a risk factor for psychosis: A systematic review. J Psychopharmacol 19:187–194.
Caspi A, Moffitt TE, Cannon M, McClay J, Murray R, et al. (2005) Moderation of the effect of adolescent-onset cannabis use on adult psychosis by a functional polymorphism in the catechol-O-methyltransferase gene: Longitudinal evidence of a gene x environment interaction. Biol Psychiatry 57:1117–1127.
Verdoux H, Ginde C, Sorbora F, Tournier M, Swendsen J (2003) Effects of cannabis and psychosis vulnerability in daily life: An experience sampling study. Psychol Med 33:3–6.
Zimmer L, Morgan JP (1997) Marijuana myths, marijuana facts: A review of the scientific evidence. New York: The Lindesmith Center. 241 p.
Johnston LD, O'Malley PM, Bachman JG (1991) Drug use among American high school seniors, college students and young adults, 1975–1990, Volume 1. Rockville (Maryland): National Institute on Drug Abuse. 199 p.
That is the next car in your logic train. Mj isn't legal mainly because of the lumber/paper industry and bible thumping idiots who would rather jail people than let them live freely when it does not affect others.
The short-sided argument again... :bs:
The hippie infestation at TigersX continues...
-
If the merits, safety, benefits or whatever you believe about MJ could stand on their own, MJ would already be legal.
This is what you said. It isn't confusing, except perhaps to you. My post was in response to what you said. Not what you said you said after you said what you said. :bar:
The next step in your logic path is off the edge of a cliff.
MJ was legal. Can you tell me the reasoning that was given for it's illegalization after being legal since the inception of this country? If you don't think that paper/lumber companies played a huge role in its illegalization then you are so completely uninformed that this debate is not worth continuing.
Also, your hippie comments are amusing and also show your complete lack of understanding of what you are arguing against. Please continue with those. It's like Hank Jr once sang, "You're the only one that you are screwing, when you put down what you don't understand". Also, if you deny that religious zealots played a huge role as well then, once again, you are completely uninformed.
I smoked pot for many years and smoked with hundreds if not thousands of people and that is where the lesser dehabiliting effects comments come from. I have smoked shit that is as good or better than you see on the cover of high times magazine and the only thing I can promise you is that the effect of the most potent mj in the world pales in comparison to a drinking binge. Not just on me but on hundreds of other people I know and have smoked with. There is no comparison. If you get too high you want to lay down and go to sleep. If you get too drunk you will lose control of your senses and judgment. Perhaps piss and vomit all over yourself. Perhaps decide to drive your car when you are barely capable of standing for more than a few moments without falling down, or maybe black out and god knows what will happen then.
This isn't just my own opinion. It is the opinion of hundreds of people that I know that actually know what they are debating about. From small town losers to multi-millionaires. So rattle on about your "knowledge" about the effects on different people and thc levels and all that stuff. Anyone who knows wtf they are talking about recognizes the idiocy of your argument.
Some people fall out unconscious if they have a half a dose of nyquil. Some nearly go into defib. if they drink half a cup of coffee. I have met more than a few people in my former line of work that say that ingesting any levels of aspartame gave them dehabilitating migraine headaches and worse.
The great thing about arguing for the legalization of pot is that logic is on your side and the other side is mostly debated by people who have absolutely no clue wtf they are talking about. I understand why you dont people using the alcohol to mj comparison to debate. It shoots all of your reasoning right in the ass.
-
This is what you said.
It isn't confusing, except perhaps to you. My post was in response to what you said. Not what you said you said after you said what you said. :bar:
Splitting hairs... What I said was in response to this "common knowledge" argument. I never said it would be if it should be, should be if it would be or any other concocted transcription.
The next step in your logic path is off the edge of a cliff.
MJ was legal. Can you tell me the reasoning that was given for it's illegalization after being legal since the inception of this country? If you don't think that paper/lumber companies played a huge role in its illegalization then you are so completely uninformed that this debate is not worth continuing.
Actually, I don't think it matters...
Also, your hippie comments are amusing and also show your complete lack of understanding of what you are arguing against. Please continue with those. It's like Hank Jr once sang, "You're the only one that you are screwing, when you put down what you don't understand".
Hank Jr??? The GREAT PHILOSOPHICAL THINKER of our time... :rofl:
And, Freebird should be the Nashional Anthum!
Also, if you deny that religious zealots played a huge role as well then, once again, you are completely uninformed.
I just don't think it was as significant as you like to make it.
I smoked pot for many years and smoked with hundreds if not thousands of people and that is where...
No offense, but your logic, reasoning, rationale and discussion points are exactly why I tend to argue against it.
The great thing about arguing for the legalization of pot is that logic is on your side and the other side is mostly debated by people who have absolutely no clue wtf they are talking about.
I think your point has some merit with most people who typically argue against legalization, but it doesn't make their opinion any less valid than yours.
I understand why you dont people using the alcohol to mj comparison to debate. It shoots all of your reasoning right in the ass.
Wrong again... It's just a silly position.
-
Splitting hairs... What I said was in response to this "common knowledge" argument. I never said it would be if it should be, should be if it would be or any other concocted transcription.
Actually, I don't think it matters...
Hank Jr??? The GREAT PHILOSOPHICAL THINKER of our time... :rofl:
And, Freebird should be the Nashional Anthum!
I just don't think it was as significant as you like to make it.
No offense, but your logic, reasoning, rationale and discussion points are exactly why I tend to argue against it.
I think your point has some merit with most people who typically argue against legalization, but it doesn't make their opinion any less valid than yours.
Wrong again... It's just a silly position.
Well, your logic and reasoning points have a lot to do with why this country is so out of whack in many ways. If you don't morally agree with someone on the issue of a victimless crime then your rationale is to arrest and prosecute that person. Wave that flag proudly my friend.
The lowest point of drug use in this country in a long time was the just say no era led by Nancy Reagan. That is how you decrease drug use if you are against it. Educate on the effects and to just say no, starting at an early age. The solution of having a "drug war" and arresting and prosecuting as many people as possible and providing government assisted rehab doesn't work. It has made us number one in at least one area though, % of our population in jail. Woo-hoo! We are falling in every other category, at least we are still #1 in something, huh :taunt:?
We are pretty much at the zero point here afa our discussion. Continuing won't do much good. FWIW,I did read a couple of the studies you provided and was not impressed. A stronger argument could almost definitely be made for making sugar illegal. The effects of sugar on our society is devestating. There are many things that we ingest into our bodies that affect us negatively in some way(s). Of course if sugar were illegal then smoking pot wouldn't be as much fun.
-
Well, your logic and reasoning points have a lot to do with why this country is so out of whack in many ways. If you don't morally agree with someone on the issue of a victimless crime then your rationale is to arrest and prosecute that person. Wave that flag proudly my friend.
Oh no... I completely disagree with that rationale, but you guys are so quick to throw those stereotypical beliefs around... Why would I challenge you on that? "If you don't morally agree with someone?" Morals? Really? And, you're still floating that "victimless crime" argument... DUI is a victimless crime too. I mean, using your logic...
The lowest point of drug use in this country in a long time was the just say no era led by Nancy Reagan. That is how you decrease drug use if you are against it. Educate on the effects and to just say no, starting at an early age. The solution of having a "drug war" and arresting and prosecuting as many people as possible and providing government assisted rehab doesn't work. It has made us number one in at least one area though, % of our population in jail. Woo-hoo! We are falling in every other category, at least we are still #1 in something, huh :taunt:?
And, we agree more on that point than you seem to realize. I just don't believe that we have an overflowing prison population of Joe Six-packs (or Joe Six-joints) going to prison for minor personal possession or use.
We are pretty much at the zero point here afa our discussion. Continuing won't do much good. FWIW,I did read a couple of the studies you provided and was not impressed. A stronger argument could almost definitely be made for making sugar illegal. The effects of sugar on our society is devestating. There are many things that we ingest into our bodies that affect us negatively in some way(s). Of course if sugar were illegal then smoking pot wouldn't be as much fun.
If you read anything, you really wouldn't be bringing up sugar. Seriously...
-
Oh no... I completely disagree with that rationale, but you guys are so quick to throw those stereotypical beliefs around... Why would I challenge you on that? "If you don't morally agree with someone?" Morals? Really? And, you're still floating that "victimless crime" argument... DUI is a victimless crime too. I mean, using your logic...
And, we agree more on that point than you seem to realize. I just don't believe that we have an overflowing prison population of Joe Six-packs (or Joe Six-joints) going to prison for minor personal possession or use.
If you read anything, you really wouldn't be bringing up sugar. Seriously...
DUI is not a true victimless crime imo. When someone drives drunk they are endangering the lives of those they encounter on the road. They are risking others lives. It is no different than reckless endangerment which is a crime.
You seem to need to fallback on the old prisons are full of casual smokers, yet they have a lot of those who supply the need of the casual smoker. If pot were legalized/decriminalized, and regulated the number of people in prison for mj trafficking and such would diminish greatly if not disappear. Also, you neglect the local jail systems. A much higher percent of people are locked up for simple possession there.
The effect of white sugar on society is devestating and the effects can't be fully measured. It is refined in a very similar way to some drugs. I may post some articles on that.
-
DUI is not a true victimless crime imo. When someone drives drunk they are endangering the lives of those they encounter on the road. They are risking others lives. It is no different than reckless endangerment which is a crime.
I think you could apply the same logic to both, which is why I don't buy any of the arguments.
You seem to need to fallback on the old prisons are full of casual smokers, yet they have a lot of those who supply the need of the casual smoker. If pot were legalized/decriminalized, and regulated the number of people in prison for mj trafficking and such would diminish greatly if not disappear. Also, you neglect the local jail systems. A much higher percent of people are locked up for simple possession there.
Actually, it was your claim throughout this thread. The prisons and jails are supposedly full of poor innocent recreational pot users. You haven't posted one fact or reference to support this, just more soundbites from the pro-pot crowd. You even posted an unreasonable stat claiming that one in six are in jail/prison for MJ related charges. Show us... Prove it... Post it... I believe your position would be a stretch by any imagination... Why wouldn't the smugglers just move to the harder stuff? Why wouldn't they move to those varieties that would likely be regulated out of legality such as Purple Haze and those Jamaican varieties? I just don't see how this would work. And, why stop at pot legalization?
The effect of white sugar on society is devestating and the effects can't be fully measured. It is refined in a very similar way to some drugs. I may post some articles on that.
This is why the pro-cannabis crowd loses credibility when trying to debate the topic. Now, we're going after sugar... It's just a stretch on my part, but I don't think sugar has any comparable chemical influence or affect on the brain, especially when compared to pot.
Cigars and cigarettes should be illegal. They are costing the medical system in this country way too much money. People can't seem to quit smoking them despite the fact they know of the tremendously elevated cancer risks. It's like nicotine is a powerful and addictive drug or something.
I hope that obama does the right things and makes them illegal. It is for the good of society.
You'd be stretching to even more ridiculous extremes to suggest cigars are anything like cigarettes, and comparing any sort of tobacco to cannabis makes about as much sense as bringing sugar into the discussion.
-
Actually it was the paper and the oil companies that went after mj. More specifically hemp.
And the pure cane brown sugar is better for you.
But no one is addressing the issue of pure cost to taxpayers for combating a drug that really just needs regulation.
-
I think you could apply the same logic to both, which is why I don't buy any of the arguments.
What exactly are saying? A person sitting at home smoking pot is not endangering anyone except arguably themselves. People who drive under the influence are, without question, endangering others, especially if it is alcohol or prescription drugs they are influenced by.
Actually, it was your claim throughout this thread. The prisons and jails are supposedly full of poor innocent recreational pot users. You haven't posted one fact or reference to support this, just more soundbites from the pro-pot crowd. You even posted an unreasonable stat claiming that one in six are in jail/prison for MJ related charges. Show us... Prove it... Post it... I believe your position would be a stretch by any imagination... Why wouldn't the smugglers just move to the harder stuff? Why wouldn't they move to those varieties that would likely be regulated out of legality such as Purple Haze and those Jamaican varieties? I just don't see how this would work. And, why stop at pot legalization?
The stats are hard to find by googling. I will look again when I have more time. I did post stats from the fbi proving that 40% of people arrested for drugs are arrested for possession of mj, while only 5 or 6 % are arrested for distributing pot. I challenge you to find solid stats that support your cause on the numbers. Not just federal pen numbers but local and state prisons too.
I don't really give a freak what mj smugglers do if they can't make their money that way. It's just not a concern of mine. They could move on to super breeds but the market would be diminished. Most people I know/knew would be okay with buying the legal stuff and imo if it is legalized you should also have the option to grow personal use amounts at home.
Why stop at pot? Pot would be enough for me. Not saying others couldn't be legalized, but there are some I wouldn't be for like meth.
This is why the pro-cannabis crowd loses credibility when trying to debate the topic. Now, we're going after sugar... It's just a stretch on my part, but I don't think sugar has any comparable chemical influence or affect on the brain, especially when compared to pot.
You obviously don't know anyone who has ever quit sugar cold turkey. Seriously, it is like coming off of a drug. However, the biggest damaging effect sugar has on society is health related and the amount of money it costs the medical system is huge compared to any effect pot has.
[/quote]You'd be stretching to even more ridiculous extremes to suggest cigars are anything like cigarettes, and comparing any sort of tobacco to cannabis makes about as much sense as bringing sugar into the discussion. [/quote]
The effect cigarette/cigar smoking has on society is billions in healthcare costs per year. There are millions of people who want these evil vices illegalized for the good of society.
-
Can anybody give me the Cliff's Notes version? I just smoked a dime and all this reading is killing my high.
-
Can anybody give me the Cliff's Notes version? I just smoked a dime and all this reading is killing my high.
Smokin is bad, Mmmkay.
-
Smokin is bad, Mmmkay.
Followed by "No it's really not."
Followed by Garman saying "Yeah it is cause I said so. Everyone who has ever smoked pot is a burnout loser who can't compete in the real world with their peers"
Followed by specific real world examples of people who shatter that stereotype.
Followed by GarMan mocking these specific examples as my "role models", as if they were not presented specifically to disprove his point, as well as demanding facts be presented to prove that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol as if they didn't exist.
Facts were presented that prove that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol.
From this point on, GarMan has declared that comparing marijuana to alcohol is a fallacy that has no place in the argument.
Now, however, it is ok to to not only compare, but equate casual marijuana use with DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE. You can't compare one substance to the other, but you can say something nonsensical like smoking at home on your couch is as dangerous to yourself and others as driving the streets drunk out of your mind, and use this statement completely devoid of fact or logic to compare the fairness of the law as it applies to both "crimes". Similar to how he equated getting fired for having thc in your blood from being drug tested after using weeks ago to showing up to work drunk as piss and reeking of alochol (instead of comparing that to showing up to work blitzed out of your mind).
I became tired of his uninformed and insanely illogical comments and comparisons, and dropped out of the conversation eight pages later.
tiger88 picked up the baton and GarMan is still ignoring any fact or logic and spouting off his insane ramblings.
Ok, I think you're all caught up now.
-
If I don't quit this thread I may need to start smoking again, lol.
-
If I don't quit this thread I may need to start smoking again, lol.
Me too.
Signed,
Ashley Biden
http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/17872 (http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/17872)
-
If I don't quit this thread I may need to start smoking again, lol.
I'll have some ready for you. You must be rewarded for you efforts.
-
I'll have some ready for you. You must be rewarded for you efforts.
Uumm..what time were you guys meeting? This scumbag lie-yer needs a break.
-
Well, GarMan, you and Obama agree. How does that sit with you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL7PG5YdFfc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL7PG5YdFfc)
I like how he said "I don't know what this says about the online audience..."
First of all, way to sound like the fuddy-duddy people accused McCain of being. "Those blasted intarwebz!"
How about it says that when people have any degree of anonymity, they feel strongly that marijuana should be legalized?
-
After having read yesterday what I think to be the most ignorant, puerile, and intellectually-limited comment that I've ever read in The SGA (by what I take to be a libertarian pothead writing without the encumbrance of the thought process) on this very subject
Rather than drag this topic all over the SGA forums, I will keep this discussion where it belongs.
How about refuting whatever it is that was said in the related thread instead of vaguely calling the poster out without actually coming out and taking a stance against it?
And yes, everyone who wants government out of their lives are potheads. Resort to name-calling when you can't win an argument... Only you and the other party line towing parrot hold this particular opinion. As much as you'd like to believe that we're a small faction of burned out hippies (thus your need to keep repeating it in hopes that if you say it enough it will become truth), the truth is I can count on one hand the number of times I have indulged in the "devil's plant", and the first time was where it was legal (Amsterdam). It is possible to have independent thought and not feel that every law should suit your personal preference...
-
Rather than drag this topic all over the SGA forums, I will keep this discussion where it belongs.
How about refuting whatever it is that was said in the related thread instead of vaguely calling the poster out without actually coming out and taking a stance against it?
And yes, everyone who wants government out of their lives are potheads. Resort to name-calling when you can't win an argument... Only you and the other party line towing parrot hold this particular opinion. As much as you'd like to believe that we're a small faction of burned out hippies (thus your need to keep repeating it in hopes that if you say it enough it will become truth), the truth is I can count on one hand the number of times I have indulged in the "devil's plant", and the first time was where it was legal (Amsterdam). It is possible to have independent thought and not feel that every law should suit your personal preference...
Obviously all of that pot has destroyed your sense of humor. As GarMan has pointed out numerous times "put the bong down."
Maybe you'll be able to see past the fucking roach clip and look at real science and facts (which have been stated and restated and restated ad nauseum on this thread) instead of false arguments by simple comparison. Your own bias on MJ has blinded you to any reasonable arguments past the tired mantra of comparison to alcohol. It is weak and GarMan has pointed that out to no avail.
So why bother. Tell it to your congressman or senator if you want it legalized...I'm sure Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby will listen.
And, unlike some on this board, I try to make an effort NOT to personally insult someone except only in good sport or in jest.
-
And, unlike some on this board, I try to make an effort NOT to personally insult someone except only in good sport or in jest.
Fuck your couch.
-
Fuck your couch.
I take that in obvious jest but just to make it clear (through the fog of MJ smoke in here) the person that I was referring to was the person that I quoted.
-
Obviously all of that pot has destroyed your sense of humor. As GarMan has pointed out numerous times "put the bong down."
Of all things to accuse marijuana of doing, destroying a sense of humor? Virtually every comedian in the history of...Oh I see...That was another joke.
Maybe you'll be able to see past the fucking roach clip and look at real science and facts (which have been stated and restated and restated ad nauseum on this thread) instead of false arguments by simple comparison. Your own bias on MJ has blinded you to any reasonable arguments past the tired mantra of comparison to alcohol. It is weak and GarMan has pointed that out to no avail.
1. I'm not a pothead. I have indulged in marijuana far less than the national average.
2. GarMan found ONE study that warns of the dangers of marijuana in adolescence. Well, no shit, it would remain illegal for the underaged, just like alcohol. I have presented MULTIPLE studies that show the medical benefits as well as the relative safety of the drug, as well as statistics on the stress this victimless crime is putting on the prison system.
4. It is insane to me that you feel that the comparison to alcohol is a "false argument." It's THE argument. You know that as well as I do, but must pretend as if it's not because it is so completely a losing argument. They are both recreational drugs with the same use and the same effect. They ARE COMPARABLE IN EVERY WAY. To try to separate them from each other in this debate is the fallacy. Virtually every harmful affect of marijuana is more prevalent with alcohol. Armed with knowledge on the subject, you MUST conclude either A) Marijuana should be legal or B) Alcohol should be illegal.
5. Again, what you've failed to comprehend is that I HAVE no bias on MJ, as I do not come anywhere near what could be considered a regular partaking in its use.
And, unlike some on this board, I try to make an effort NOT to personally insult someone except only in good sport or in jest.
So when you do it, it's in good sport or in jest. When I do it, it's pure malice.
Got it.
I still never saw what you feel was "the most ignorant, puerile, and intellectually-limited comment" you've ever heard...
-
What exactly are saying? A person sitting at home smoking pot is not endangering anyone except arguably themselves. People who drive under the influence are, without question, endangering others, especially if it is alcohol or prescription drugs they are influenced by.
Or, the bong they just hit...
The stats are hard to find by googling. I will look again when I have more time. I did post stats from the fbi proving that 40% of people arrested for drugs are arrested for possession of mj, while only 5 or 6 % are arrested for distributing pot. I challenge you to find solid stats that support your cause on the numbers. Not just federal pen numbers but local and state prisons too.
This makes no sense... You're the one arguing for legalization with wild-assed claims that you can't seem to prove with reference-able facts. Why do I need to look this up? You made the assertion. Prove it! That's all. Making an opinionated statement without facts to back it up is ridiculous.
I don't really give a freak what mj smugglers do if they can't make their money that way. It's just not a concern of mine. They could move on to super breeds but the market would be diminished. Most people I know/knew would be okay with buying the legal stuff and imo if it is legalized you should also have the option to grow personal use amounts at home.
Let's try this again... If you're a criminal with an infrastructure that supports the distribution and sale of MJ, what makes you believe that the legalization of MJ will stop the criminal from performing criminal activities? Why wouldn't the criminal just move to cocaine, meth or other illegal narcotics?
Why stop at pot? Pot would be enough for me. Not saying others couldn't be legalized, but there are some I wouldn't be for like meth.
Again, this makes no sense. Why stop at pot? If the war on drugs is such a waste, why not legalize everything?
You obviously don't know anyone who has ever quit sugar cold turkey. Seriously, it is like coming off of a drug. However, the biggest damaging effect sugar has on society is health related and the amount of money it costs the medical system is huge compared to any effect pot has.
I could also argue the affect of pot on the fuel efficiency of Mack trucks is negligible compared to the impact that sugar bares on the industry, but that has no value to this discussion... Neither does sugar...
I see we need another online tutorial on how to use the Quote function...
The effect cigarette/cigar smoking has on society is billions in healthcare costs per year. There are millions of people who want these evil vices illegalized for the good of society.
Why stop there? Saturated fats are bad too! If pot was already legal, I would likely not argue for making it illegal. Along the same lines, I would not argue for the illegalization of tobacco or alcohol because pot is illegal. There's no logic to any of those arguments. But, I'm still going to enjoy some lead-based paint chips with my cigar tonight. :thumbsup:
-
Again, this makes no sense. Why stop at pot? If the war on drugs is such a waste, why not legalize everything?
Because, SOME drugs are in fact harmful. SOME are addicting. Marijuana is not one of those. A substantial percentage of Americans smoke pot and stop there, despite your gateway drug fallacy. I personally drink at least three nights a week, smoke cigars on rare occasion, have smoked marijuana few enough times to count on one hand, and have never partaken in any other recreation drug (including cigarettes) in my life. To say that I'm biased toward MJ over alcohol is a complete and utter joke.
I could also argue the affect of pot on the fuel efficiency of Mack trucks is negligible compared to the impact that sugar bares on the industry, but that has no value to this discussion... Neither does sugar...
It is ridiculous, isn't it? He used it as an illustration on how ridiculous your accusations against marijuana are. You guys didn't do so well on the comparison/contrast portion of the SAT's did you?
Why stop there? Saturated fats are bad too! If pot was already legal, I would likely not argue for making it illegal. Along the same lines, I would not argue for the illegalization of tobacco or alcohol because pot is illegal. There's no logic to any of those arguments. But, I'm still going to enjoy some lead-based paint chips with my cigar tonight. :thumbsup:
You can agree that something like saturated fats are similarly as harmful as marijuana, yet you still are so adamant about it remaining illegal... So your whole thing is "Every law is perfect, and shouldn't be questioned." Pot's illegal now (we've been over exactly why that is, not rehashing), so it's bad. Alcohol is legal now, so it's good. Again, in 1930 you would have been a staunch prohibitionist, clearly.
-
Here is an article with some crime statistics for marijuana users. Of course, it comes from the NORML website, so I'm sure that immediately discredits it in some people's eyes.
Our country's war on drugs places great emphasis on arresting people for smoking marijuana. In the last decade, 6.5 million Americans have been arrested on marijuana charges, a greater number than the entire populations of Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming combined. In 2006, state and local law enforcement arrested 829,625 people for marijuana violations. Annual marijuana arrests have nearly tripled since the early 1990s, and is the highest number ever recorded by the FBI.
As has been the case throughout the 1990s, the overwhelming majority of those charged with marijuana violations in 2006 -- 738,915 Americans (89 %) -- were for simple possession. The remaining 90,710 individuals were for "sale/manufacture", an FBI category which includes marijuana grown for personal use or purely medical purposes. These new FBI statistics indicate that one marijuana smoker is arrested every 38 seconds in America. Taken together, the total number of marijuana arrests for 2006 far exceeded the combined number of arrests for violent crimes, including murder, manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault.
Like most Americans, people who smoke marijuana also pay taxes, love and support their families, and work hard to make a better life for their children. Suddenly they are arrested, jailed and treated like criminals solely because of their recreational drug of choice. State agencies frequently step in and declare children of marijuana smokers to be "in danger", and many children are placed into foster homes as a result. This causes enormous pain, suffering and financial hardship for millions of American families. It also engenders distrust and disrespect for the law and for the criminal justice system overall. Responsible marijuana smokers present no threat or danger to America or its children, and there is no reason to treat them as criminals, or to take their children away. As a society we need to find ways to discourage personal conduct of all kinds that is abusive or harmful to others. Responsible marijuana smokers are not the problem and it is time to stop arresting them.
The ultimate goal of NORML and The NORML Foundation is to end the criminal prohibition of marijuana. We do not believe otherwise law-abiding citizens who smoke marijuana should be arrested and treated like criminals. Adults should be permitted to smoke marijuana in private. Federal prohibition of marijuana should be abolished and the states should be encouraged to experiment with different models of decriminalization.
-
Corrections below...
Followed by "No it's really not."
Followed by Garman saying "Yeah it is cause I said the science says so. Everyone Those who has ever typically smoked pot is a burnout loser who can't don't compete in the real world on par with their peers. <Followed by links to articles referencing studies showing increased incidence of mental illness and learning deficiencies among MJ users>"
Followed by specific real world examples of people students, a swimmer, an actor and others who shatter are either nuetral or have proven that stereotype to some degree.
Followed by GarMan mocking these specific examples as my "role models", showing examples of how they're not exactly mental giants or super-geniuses, as if they were not presented specifically to disprove his point, as well as demanding facts be presented to prove that marijuana is safe less harmful than alcohol as if they didn't exist.
Drive-by moderator flexes his e-penis and after much debate inserts alcohol into the discussion and presents Facts were presented that prove that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, and running out in front of cars and playing with tigers and bears and swimming with sting rays and biting the heads off Cobras.
From this point on, GarMan has declared that comparing marijuana to alcohol is a fallacy that has no place in the argument because it doesn't.
Now, however, it is ok to to not only compare, but equate casual marijuana use with DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE. You can't compare one substance to the other, but you can say something nonsensical like smoking at home on your couch is as dangerous to yourself and others as driving the streets drunk out of your mind, and use this statement completely devoid of fact or logic to compare the fairness of the law as it applies to both "crimes". Of course, Garman has never posted any of that, but he continues to mock us pot-heads as we bring up these wild-assed claims to support our pro-legalization argument. Similar to how he equated getting fired for having thc in your blood from being drug tested after using weeks ago to showing up to work drunk as piss and reeking of alochol (instead of comparing that to showing up to work blitzed out of your mind). Of course, he never really stated that either, but it's fun to push this to silly-assed extremes in between bong hits and play (or maybe not playing) stupid with our half-witted arguments.
I became tired of his uninformed and insanely illogical him always demanding facts to prove my position comments and mocking comparisons, and dropped out (hit and run) of the conversation on the sixth pageeight pages later.
tiger88 picked up the baton in between his bong hits and GarMan is still ignoring any requesting facts or logic and spouting off his insane mocking ramblings.
Ok, I think you're all caught up now.
-
Well, GarMan, you and Obama agree. How does that sit with you?
I think a lot of people agree that MJ legalization wouldn't improve the economy. You don't have to be a genius for that one. Although, it might stump some folks in between bong hits...
I like how he said "I don't know what this says about the online audience..."
Actually, I think it's pretty sad to see a President even address the idea and a major news outlet spend anymore than 5 seconds on the topic. But, that's just me... One of those haven't-touched-pot-in-20-years-because-I-know-better folks...
How about it says that when people have any degree of anonymity, they feel strongly that marijuana should be legalized?
Wow... If people felt that strongly about gay marriage... :taunt:
-
2. GarMan found ONE study that warns of the dangers of marijuana in adolescence. Well, no shit, it would remain illegal for the underaged, just like alcohol.
HEY HIT-AND-RUN,
Actually, I've posted several links to articles with references to countless studies. If you're going to play with the big boys, let's get it right or at least, keep it honest. You're welcome to refute the science. I don't really give a shit. I'm actually interested in having an honest debate on this topic, but it seems that many are incapable of doing so. Tiger88 can't keep a coherent thought long enough or express himself appropriately to make any sense in many of his posts. You have the debate tactics of a 12 year old constantly pushing my positions to unreasonable extremes, selectively ignoring words in many of my posts and bringing in unrelated arguments like "safer than alchohol" that the pro-pot community likes to float.
The guts of my original post in this thread still stand....
There are serious longer term affects to the brain. You can research THC, hippocampus, learning, cognitive ability, memory, emotional response and motivational response for additional information, but the evidence of its adverse affects is far more conclusive than arguments for glow-bull warming, the safety of organic foods, the dangers of asbestos and lead-based paint.
My personal concern is the result of its legalization on the capability, capacity and mental stability of future generations. Studies have shown that those who have used between the ages of 14 to 24, when the brain is developing more advanced functions such as those mentioned above, suffer from more serious longer term affects. Basically, they're handicapping themselves. They might be able to hold down a job, but you’re not typically going to find them performing open-heart surgery, designing a spaceship or developing a new source of energy. In fact, you're probably won't even find them running companies, serving on corporate boards, or performing in the top 20% or our nation's producers. The damage caused by THC during those years of brain development is irreversible. In fact, any damage brought about by the occasional use of THC is irreversible regardless of age. It's just more pronounced in those who have "experimented" during those developmental years.
And, the conclusion of my original post is overwhelmingly obvious...
Why handicap yourself?
-
Because, SOME drugs are in fact harmful. SOME are addicting. Marijuana is not one of those. A substantial percentage of Americans smoke pot and stop there, despite your gateway drug fallacy.
There you go again! Did I ever debate the gateway drug argument? There you go with that brush and that straw-man...
I personally drink at least three nights a week, smoke cigars on rare occasion, have smoked marijuana few enough times to count on one hand, and have never partaken in any other recreation drug (including cigarettes) in my life. To say that I'm biased toward MJ over alcohol is a complete and utter joke.
Point? Why post this? This means nothing. I never claimed that you had a bias towards MJ. Are you swinging that brush around again?
It is ridiculous, isn't it? He used it as an illustration on how ridiculous your accusations against marijuana are.
No... Actually, it's like bringing up alcohol, sugar or tobacco in this discussion.
You guys didn't do so well on the comparison/contrast portion of the SAT's did you?
Who's "You guys"? You and your damn stereotypes... You don't compare/contrast to win debates like this. You present logical arguments and back them up with factual evidence, rather than opinions of your misguided perceptions.
You can agree that something like saturated fats are similarly as harmful as marijuana, yet you still are so adamant about it remaining illegal...
No... I can't agree. I can't agree that anything belongs in this discussion other than facts about the substance being discussed. Alcohol doesn't belong in this discussion. Neither do sugar, tobacco, bears, Mack trucks and Cobras...
So your whole thing is "Every law is perfect, and shouldn't be questioned." Pot's illegal now (we've been over exactly why that is, not rehashing), so it's bad. Alcohol is legal now, so it's good. Again, in 1930 you would have been a staunch prohibitionist, clearly.
No, no and no...
There are lots of bad laws, rules and regulations out there, and many need to be overturned.
It is my opinion that Cannabis should remain illegal because of the modern science on the topic. The affects to brain development are real. There are countless articles and countless studies, and some have been posted here. 'Nuff said...
AS for alcohol in the 1930s, it would have depended on the science of the time. That's it. Nothing more... Nothing less... Knowing what I know now, with hindsight being 20/20, I would have built a Kennedy-sized empire or left the country.
-
Of all things to accuse marijuana of doing, destroying a sense of humor? Virtually every comedian in the history of...Oh I see...That was another joke.
...
And here we go...again...this arrogant, know-it-all, condescending, attitude of yours on this subject...AGAIN...this is the reason why I'm not wasting my time arguing with you on this subject.
Pardon the pun but there seems to be no reasoning with you at all. You can't see past that roach-clip, laws are what made civilization, not the 'do what you want to because it feels good' attitude of many libertarians, but that's another subject; you make no convincing arguments for legalization in my opinion (too fucking bad if you have a problem with that); and you can't seem to appreciate or even read anything arguing to the other side because of your bias (and, yes, to a certain extent I can say the same about myself - which is far more than you would probably ever admit to - not to mention the fact that there's real science behind the arguments against the use of MJ hence the laws for making it illegal).
But...AGAIN...why bother. Call your congressman...or senators...if you want it legalized...maybe they'll care because I certainly don't. I'm glad it's illegal to use and possess (in most sane areas of America) and I hope that it stays that way. But if it doesn't it'll be just another log on the roaring funeral pyre of Amerika.
No, I'm not going to call out (or single out) anyone for the referenced comment. In hindsight the comment that I made was too personal so I'll take it no further (it was not made by you in case that's what you're concerned about). If you have a problem with that...then too fucking bad.
While we're on that issue though the subject of the thread on which it appeared had no immediate relevance to the referenced comment which is why I started a new thread; to hopefully educate everyone on the root cause of the so-called financial crisis. So, call off teh ebay nazis, I didn't break any protocols of The X.
Sorry that I "called you a name" by the way...tell the teacher.*
(I realize that's a disingenuous apology but it's more than what I got from you.)
-
There are protocols here that don't involve Jumbo and a dog?
Hmmmf. Who knew.
-
Or, the bong they just hit...
Well, no one is supposed to operate a vehicle after drinking or doing prescription drugs, or smoking pot. You are mixing two arguments here.
n
This makes no sense... You're the one arguing for legalization with wild-assed claims that you can't seem to prove with reference-able facts. Why do I need to look this up? You made the assertion. Prove it! That's all. Making an opinionated statement without facts to back it up is ridiculous.
Go back and re-read what I said that you quoted here and if you still feel this way then so be it. I will look for it when I feel like it. The stats are not easy to find.
Let's try this again... If you're a criminal with an infrastructure that supports the distribution and sale of MJ, what makes you believe that the legalization of MJ will stop the criminal from performing criminal activities? Why wouldn't the criminal just move to cocaine, meth or other illegal narcotics?
That might be good. They could war it up with the already existing cartels and many on both sides would die and society would be better off.
Again, this makes no sense. Why stop at pot? If the war on drugs is such a waste, why not legalize everything?
It's a slippery slope. The effects of mj are simply less destructive than the effects of the other drugs. Also, the other drugs tend to create erratic and violent behavior in many that use them. Much more so than even alcohol. Part of me does say legalize them all, to an extent at least. A bigger part of me would never want to see meth legalized.
Why just mj? Because it is relatively harmless, especially compared to acohol and even a lot of prescription drugs. I have already provided fbi stats that show that 40% of ALL drug arrests made each year are for simple mj possession. It is a tremendous and unneeded strain on law enforcement that could be virtually eliminated with the swipe of a pen. The truth is that most people I have known over the years would be fine with just smoking pot.
Mj is much less harmful than other drugs and takes up a ridiculous amount of law enforcements time that could be spent constructively protecting the public.
I could also argue the affect of pot on the fuel efficiency of Mack trucks is negligible compared to the impact that sugar bares on the industry, but that has no value to this discussion... Neither does sugar...
Listen, I'm not going to spend my time surfing the web for all sorts of info. to educate you where you are lacking. That is either your job or someone other than mine. Sugar is much like a drug. The way that white sugar is refined is similar to the way some drugs are refined. Have you ever known anyone that went on one of those no sugar diets? I mean NO SUGAR at all. Nothing that even contains even trace amounts of sugar. They go into withdrawals like you wouldn't believe. Not as strong as heroin withdrawls but they are profound, noe the less. It takes most people a minimum of four to five days to come out of it, then they feel much better than they did before.
Anyone who thinks sugar is not addictive is a fool. Our healthcare costs rise every year and sugar has a lot to do with it. Obesity, heart disease, diabetes, etc. etc. etc.
My point is that the effect that mj has on our society is much less than that of sugar. I think it's true. Do I think sugar should be made illegal? No. Do I think our country would be better off if sugar were illegal as opposed to mj? Yes.
Now, babble on about mack trucks if you must.
I see we need another online tutorial on how to use the Quote function...
Here's your fucking cookie, oh master of the quote function. :eyeroll: :taunt:
Why stop there? Saturated fats are bad too! If pot was already legal, I would likely not argue for making it illegal. Along the same lines, I would not argue for the illegalization of tobacco or alcohol because pot is illegal. There's no logic to any of those arguments. But, I'm still going to enjoy some lead-based paint chips with my cigar tonight. :thumbsup:
It is amazing that you attack others logic and keep falling back on this ridiculous, pot is already illegal so it should stay that way argument. Your logic train here is so broken it is amazing you can't see that. Using that type of logic one could assume that no law had ever been repealed that benefited us as a country. It falls right in line with the "if it should be legal it already would be" line of logic you used earlier then denied it when I confronted you with it.
Using that flawed logic, we could freeze all laws right now and never add or take away another one. The strength of that argument is jealous of the strength of puppy piss.
-
I stole this from aunation but had laready seen it on the news and wanted to post it in this thread.
Just the beginning? (http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-tobacco3-2009apr03,0,5223437.story)
House votes to put tobacco under FDA control
The agency would be able to reject new products, restrict advertising and limit nicotine levels. Some senators threaten filibuster.
By Rebecca Cole
April 3, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- The House on Thursday voted to give the Food and Drug Administration unprecedented powers to regulate the tobacco industry.
The measure would allow the FDA to reject new tobacco products, restrict advertising and take other steps. It passed easily, 298 to 112, but may face a filibuster in the Senate.
Anti-smoking groups have clamored for years for the government to exert more control over the industry.
"This is truly a historic day in the fight against tobacco, and I am proud that we have taken such decisive action," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) in a statement.
Since 2000, when the Supreme Court ruled that the FDA did not have the authority to regulate tobacco products, Waxman and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) have taken turns submitting legislation to give the FDA control. A similar bill Waxman introduced last year also passed the House, but it languished in a Senate subcommittee after President Bush vowed to veto it.
Now, with the backing of President Obama, whose own struggles to quit smoking are well documented, the measure stands a better chance of becoming law, advocates said.
However, senators from some tobacco-growing states are lining up to oppose it, with Richard M. Burr (R-N.C.) threatening a filibuster.
The bill would give the FDA wide-ranging control over tobacco products, including the elimination of harmful additives as well as candylike flavorings appealing to children. .
The bill would also allow the FDA to regulate nicotine levels and prohibit potentially healthy-sounding terms like "light" and "mild" in product descriptions.
The bill would not let the FDA ban tobacco products or nicotine.
The leaders of several major public health groups -- including the American Medical Assn., the American Lung Assn. and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids -- endorsed the legislation.
Some House members who opposed the measure advocated smoking-cessation efforts instead.
During floor debate, Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.) argued that consumers might infer from an FDA stamp of approval that the tobacco products were safe.
Buyer also said that the cash-strapped FDA couldn't handle regulating another huge industry.
He advocated housing the program within the Health and Human Services Department.
But Waxman dismissed Buyer's concerns, saying that because the program would be funded by a fee levied on the tobacco industry, it would not divert resources from other FDA functions.
"We shouldn't delay this long-overdue measure based on a misplaced concern about the FDA's other resource challenges," he said.
Dr. David Kessler, who headed the FDA under President Clinton, said the legislation would provide the right tools to thwart the addictive cues -- in marketing claims and in the products themselves -- that the tobacco industry has for years used to hook people.
"It is as near perfect a bill as we have had over the last two decades," he said.
Kessler pointed to the culture shift the country has undergone since Waxman first introduced legislation nearly two decades ago.
"Where once we saw smoking as something glamorous and pleasurable," Kessler said, "now we see it as a deadly addictive product."
Tobacco giant Philip Morris is also behind the bill. Altria Group Inc., Philip Morris' parent company, said in a statement that it supports "tough but reasonable federal regulation of tobacco products" and that the company would "monitor and engage on this legislation" as it makes its way through Congress.
-
It took like one second of googling to find this article. I can post 100's more if necessary. That might take another minute though.
The horrific facts on sugar (http://macrobiotics.co.uk/sugar.htm)
SUGAR - ITS EFFECTS ON THE BODY & MIND
notes from various sources Back
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hidden Story of Big Sugar
These videos explore the dark history and modern power of the world's reigning sugar cartels. Using dramatic reenactments, they reveal how sugar was at the heart of slavery in the West Indies in the 18th century, while showing how present-day consumers are slaves to a sugar-based diet.
Of all the foods consumed today, refined sugar is considered to be one of the most harmful.
...In 1997 Americans devoured 7.3 billion pounds of candy. Americans spent an estimated $23.1 billion dollars on candy and gum. The average American consumed a record 27.3 pounds of candy and gum in the same year-the equivalent of about six regular sized chocolate bars a week-marking the fifth consecutive year of increased demand. (1)
...Consumption of processed foods (which are laced with sugar) cost the American public more than $54 billion in dental bills each year, so the dental industry reaps huge profits from the programmed addiction of the public to sugar products.
...Today we have a nation that is addicted to sugar. In 1915, the national average of sugar consumption (per year) was around 15 to 20 pounds per person. Today the average person consumes his/her weight in sugar, plus over 20 pounds of corn syrup.
To add more horrors to these facts there are some people that use no sweets and some who use much less than the average figure, which means that there is a percentage of the population that consume a great deal more refined sugar than their body weight. The human body cannot tolerate this large amount of refined carbohydrates. The vital organs in the body are actually damaged by this gross intake of sugar.
...Refined sugar contains no fiber, no minerals, no proteins, no fats, no enzymes, only empty calories. What happens when you eat a refined carbohydrate like sugar? Your body must borrow vital nutrients from healthy cells to metabolize the incomplete food. Calcium, sodium, potassium and magnesium are taken from various parts of the body to make use of the sugar. Many times, so much calcium is used to neutralize the effects of sugar that the bones become osteoporotic due to the withdrawn calcium.
Likewise, the teeth are affected and they lose their components until decay occurs and hastens their loss.
...Refined sugar is void of all nutrients, consequently it causes the body to deplete its own stores of various vitamins, minerals and enzymes. If sugar consumption is continued, an over-acid condition results, and more minerals are needed from deep in the body to correct the imbalance. If the body is lacking the nutrients used to metabolize sugar, it will not be able to properly handle and rid itself of the poisonous residues.
These wastes accumulate through the brain and nervous system, which speeds up cellular death. The bloodstream becomes over-loaded with waste products and symptoms of carbonic poisoning result.
...Sugar also makes the blood very thick and sticky, inhibiting much of the blood flow into the minute capillaries that supply our gums and teeth with vital nutrients. Therefore, we wind up with diseased gums and starving teeth. America and England, the two largest sugar consumers, have horrendous dental problems.
...In 1948, a $57,000 ten-year study was awarded to Harvard University by the Sugar Research Foundation to find out how sugar causes cavities in teeth and how to prevent it. In 1958, Time magazine reported the findings, which were reported in the Dental Association Journal. They discovered there was no way to prevent the problem and their funding immediately disappeared.
...“The most significant human study was done in Sweden, reported in 1954, and known as the Vipeholm Dental Caries Study. More than 400 adult mental patients were placed on controlled diets and observed for five years. The subjects were divided into various groups. Some ate complex and simple carbohydrates at mealtimes only, while other supplemented mealtime food with between-meal-snacks, sweetened with sucrose, chocolate, caramel, or toffee.
Among the conclusions drawn from the study, was that sucrose consumption could increase caries activity. The risk increased if the sucrose was consumed in a sticky form that adhered to the tooth’s surfaces. The greatest damage was inflicted by foods with high concentrations of sucrose, in sticky form, eaten between meals, even if contact with the tooth’s surfaces was brief. Caries, due to the intake of foods with high sucrose levels, could be decreased when such offending foods were eliminated from the diet.
But individual differences existed, and in some cases, caries continued to appear despite avoidance of refined sugar or maximum restriction of natural sugars and total dietary carbohydrates.” (2)
...Diabetes is another commonly known disease caused by sugar as well as a high fat diet. Diabetes is caused by the failure of the pancreas to produce adequate insulin when the blood sugar rises. A concentrated amount of sugar introduced into the system sends the body into shock from the rapid rise in the blood sugar level. The pancreas eventually wears out from overwork and diabetes then rears its ugly head.
...Hypoglycemia occurs when the pancreas overreacts to the large amount of sugar in the blood and releases too much insulin leaving one with the “tired” feeling as the blood sugar level becomes lower than it should be.
“A recent article in the British Medical Journal, entitled The Sweet Road to Gallstones, reported that refined sugar may be one of the major dietary risk factors in gallstone disease. Gallstones are composed of fats and calcium. Sugar can upset all of the minerals, and one of the minerals, calcium, can become toxic or nonfunctioning, depositing itself anywhere in the body, including the gallbladder.
...“One out of ten Americans has gallstones. This risk increases to one out of every five after age forty. Gallstones may go unnoticed or may cause pain-wrenching pain. Other symptoms might include bloating, belching, and intolerance to foods.” (3)
...Another serious problem with sugar that is now coming to the forefront is the various levels of mental problems. Our brains are very sensitive and react to quick chemical changes within the body. As sugar is consumed, our cells are robbed of their B vitamin, which destroys them, and insulin production is inhibited. Low insulin production means a high sugar (glucose) level in the bloodstream, which can lead to a confused mental state or unsound mind, and has also been linked with juvenile criminal behavior.
Dr. Alexander G. Schauss, brings this solemn fact out in his book, Diet, Crime and Delinquency. Many mental ward and prison inmates are “sugarholics” and erratic emotional outbreaks often follow a sugar binge.
REFINED SUGAR-A DRUG?
...Refined sugar, by some, is called a drug, because in the refining process everything of food value has been removed except the carbohydrates-pure calories, without vitamins, minerals, proteins, fats, enzymes or any of the other elements that make up food. Many nutrition experts say that white sugar is extremely harmful, possibly as harmful as a drug, especially in the quantities consumed by the present-day American.
...Dr. David Reuben, author of Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Nutrition says, “…white refined sugar-is not a food. It is a pure chemical extracted from plant sources, purer in fact than cocaine, which it resembles in many ways. Its true name is sucrose and its chemical formula is C12H22O11.
It has 12 carbon atoms, 22 hydrogen atoms, 11 oxygen atoms, and absolutely nothing else to offer.” ...The chemical formula for cocaine is C17H21NO4. Sugar’s formula again is C12H22O11. For all practical purposes, the difference is that sugar is missing the “N”, or nitrogen atom. ...Refining means to make “pure” by a process of extraction or separation. Sugars are refined by taking a natural food, which contains a high percentage of sugar, and then removing all elements of that food until only the sugar remains. ...While sugar is commonly made from sugar cane or sugar beets.
Through heating and mechanical and chemical processing, all vitamins, minerals, proteins, fats, enzymes and indeed every nutrient is removed until only the sugar remains. Sugar cane and sugar beets are first harvested and then chopped into small pieces, squeezing out the juice, which is then mixed with water. This liquid is then heated, and lime is added.
Moisture is boiled away, and the remaining fluid is pumped into vacuum pans to concentrate the juice. By this time, the liquid is starting to crystallize, and is ready to be placed into a centrifuge machine where any remaining residues (like molasses) are spun away. The crystals are then dissolved by heating to the boiling point and passed through charcoal filters.
After the crystals condense, they are bleached snow-white usually by the use of pork or cattle bones. ...During the refining process, 64 food elements are destroyed. All the potassium, magnesium, calcium, iron, manganese, phosphate, and sulfate are removed. The A, D, and B, vitamins are destroyed.
Amino acids, vital enzymes, unsaturated fats, and all fiber are gone. To a lesser or greater degree, all refined sweeteners such as corn syrup, maple syrup, etc., undergo similar destructive processes. Molasses is the chemical and deranged nutrients that is a byproduct of sugar manufacture.
...Sugar manufacturers are aggressive in defending their product and have a strong political lobby which allows them to continue selling a deadly food item that by all reason should not be allowed in the American diet.
...If you have any doubts as to the detriments of sugar (sucrose), try leaving it out of your diet for several weeks and see if it makes a difference! You may also notice you have acquired an addiction and experience some withdrawal symptoms.
...Studies show that “sugar” is just as habit-forming as any narcotic; and its use, misuse, and abuse is our nation’s number one disaster.
It is no wonder when we consider all the products we consume daily which are loaded with sugar! The average healthy digestive system can digest and eliminate from two to four teaspoons of sugar daily, usually without noticeable problems, (that is if damage is not already present).
One 12 oz. Cola contains 11 teaspoons of sugar, and that’s aside from the caffeine. It’s the sugar that gives you quick energy, but only for a brief time due to the rise of the blood sugar level. But the body quickly releases a rush of insulin, which rapidly lowers the blood sugar and causes a significant drop in energy and endurance. It is easy to see why America’s health is in serious trouble.
-- top^
EFFECT OF SUGAR ON NEUROLOGICAL PROCESSES ...One of the keys to orderly brain function is glutamic acid, and this compound is found in many vegetables. When sugar is consumed, the bacteria in the intestines, which manufacture B vitamin complexes, begin to die-these bacteria normally thrive in a symbiotic relationship with the human body. When the B vitamin complex level declines, the glutamic acid (normally transformed into “go” “no-go” directive neural enzymes by the B vitamins) is not processed and sleepiness occurs, as well as a decreased ability for short-term memory function and numerical calculative abilities. The removal of B vitamins when foods are “processed” makes the situation even more tenuous.
-- top^
WHAT ABOUT GUM CHEWING? ...Besides the sugar in gum being damaging to the teeth there is another harmful problem to consider and that is: “teeth and jaws weren’t designed for more than a few minutes of solid chewing per day-far less than the two hours clocked in daily by hardcore gum chewers. All this chewing results in inordinate wear on the jawbone, gum tissue and lower molars, and can change the alignment of the jaws” says Michael Elsohn, D.D.S., in the Medical Tribune.
-
Here is an article that shows we are currently locking up between 12 and 14 % of state and federal inmates for mj related offenses. This adds up to over one billion / yr for that alone. Throw in the obscene amount of arrests for possession and the costs nears 10 billion /yr. Thios article also hits on the fact that casual smokers are the biggest target of the war on drugs as 42% of all drug arrests are for mj possession.
The absurdity continues (http://www.nowpublic.com/pot_prisoners_cost_americans_1_billion_a_year)
Still cant find the exact stats on %'s by crime. I am done looking for now. There is no doubt in my mind that when you throw in local and county jails, that one in four prisoners in jail for mj are there for possession. The one in six (prisoners in jail for mj) I provided earlier from an article may be a little off but not much at all.
One interesting theme I found several times while googling is that while violent crime %'s have been decreasing for years, incareration rates have been skyrocketing. Hmmm.
-
Well, no one is supposed to operate a vehicle after drinking or doing prescription drugs, or smoking pot. You are mixing two arguments here.
n
Of course, but it's on par with the "victimless" position of MJ use. It may be a little more obvious with the easily identifiable reckless endangerment argument, but nobody's an immediate victim.
Go back and re-read what I said that you quoted here and if you still feel this way then so be it. I will look for it when I feel like it. The stats are not easy to find.
If you used it as a supporting evidence to your argument, surely you have a reference. Don't you?
That might be good. They could war it up with the already existing cartels and many on both sides would die and society would be better off.
That might be bad. Pricing wars between various drug cartels and street pushers could result in the cost of harder drugs dropping below the theoretical legal price of MJ. The point here is that they illegal operations wouldn't become legal or disappear with MJ legalization. They would just move to the harder stuff and risk exposure of more harmful and dangerous narcotics to everyone.
It's a slippery slope. The effects of mj are simply less destructive than the effects of the other drugs. Also, the other drugs tend to create erratic and violent behavior in many that use them. Much more so than even alcohol. Part of me does say legalize them all, to an extent at least. A bigger part of me would never want to see meth legalized.
And, I agree with you on that, but building on my argument above, if you legalize MJ, wouldn't you also be forcing those who already participate in the trafficking and distribution of MJ to move to the harder stuff? Wouldn’t this increased flow of harder drugs be even a greater danger to society?
Why just mj? Because it is relatively harmless, especially compared to acohol and even a lot of prescription drugs. I have already provided fbi stats that show that 40% of ALL drug arrests made each year are for simple mj possession. It is a tremendous and unneeded strain on law enforcement that could be virtually eliminated with the swipe of a pen. The truth is that most people I have known over the years would be fine with just smoking pot.
Mj is much less harmful than other drugs and takes up a ridiculous amount of law enforcements time that could be spent constructively protecting the public.
A claim of some FBI stat doesn't make it fact. Post it. Prove it. Show me. I need evidence. I also wonder how many of these MJ users actually only use MJ, and how many of those innocent MJ pushers just push MJ, and how many of those innocent MJ traffickers just push MJ... Just some things to consider...
Listen, I'm not going to spend my time surfing the web for all sorts of info. to educate you where you are lacking. That is either your job or someone other than mine. Sugar is much like a drug. The way that white sugar is refined is similar to the way some drugs are refined. Have you ever known anyone that went on one of those no sugar diets? I mean NO SUGAR at all. Nothing that even contains even trace amounts of sugar. They go into withdrawals like you wouldn't believe. Not as strong as heroin withdrawls but they are profound, noe the less. It takes most people a minimum of four to five days to come out of it, then they feel much better than they did before.
Anyone who thinks sugar is not addictive is a fool. Our healthcare costs rise every year and sugar has a lot to do with it. Obesity, heart disease, diabetes, etc. etc. etc.
My point is that the effect that mj has on our society is much less than that of sugar. I think it's true. Do I think sugar should be made illegal? No. Do I think our country would be better off if sugar were illegal as opposed to mj? Yes.
Now, babble on about mack trucks if you must.
Now look, you've made claims, and all I've asked is for proof. You've pulled sugar into the discussion. Again, all I've asked is for proof. If I told you that dog shit was safer than baby food, would you honestly start feeding your baby dog shit? I mean seriously... You're going to want a little more proof than just my claims before you even touch dog shit. At least, I would hope so.
Here's your fucking cookie, oh master of the quote function. :eyeroll: :taunt:
Have fun with it! Don't get your panties in a wad like that hit-and-run guy who slings shit and cries foul at every turn. Enjoy the board for what it is. If you're not having fun teasing and poking one another :poke:, you're on the wrong board.
It is amazing that you attack others logic and keep falling back on this ridiculous, pot is already illegal so it should stay that way argument. Your logic train here is so broken it is amazing you can't see that. Using that type of logic one could assume that no law had ever been repealed that benefited us as a country. It falls right in line with the "if it should be legal it already would be" line of logic you used earlier then denied it when I confronted you with it.
Using that flawed logic, we could freeze all laws right now and never add or take away another one. The strength of that argument is jealous of the strength of puppy piss.
You obviously don't understand. Did I say, "pot is already illegal so it should stay that way"? And once again, I never said "if it should be legal it already would be". That's just your weak understanding of my position, and I'm not going to explain it again. I'm waiting for another bible thumper accusation...
-
It took like one second of googling to find this article. I can post 100's more if necessary. That might take another minute though.
The horrific facts on sugar (http://macrobiotics.co.uk/sugar.htm)
You can find anything on the Internet these days, but what about saturated fats? Wrestling with bears? And, biting the heads off Cobras?
Do you honestly believe that sugar consumption versus cannabis consumption are even comparable arguments?
-
Of course, but it's on par with the "victimless" position of MJ use. It may be a little more obvious with the easily identifiable reckless endangerment argument, but nobody's an immediate victim.
Wrong. Endangerment is a crime. When you drive drunk you are needlessly and recklessly endangering those around you regardless of whether they end up affected or not. Reckless driving is a crime because you know that if you let enough yahoos drive recklessly people are going to get needlessly hurt. Same with dui. Smoking pot in the privacy of your own home needlessly endangers no one.
If you used it as a supporting evidence to your argument, surely you have a reference. Don't you?
That might be bad. Pricing wars between various drug cartels and street pushers could result in the cost of harder drugs dropping below the theoretical legal price of MJ. The point here is that they illegal operations wouldn't become legal or disappear with MJ legalization. They would just move to the harder stuff and risk exposure of more harmful and dangerous narcotics to everyone.
Pure speculation and nothing else. I know that in my case, if pot were legalized, I would not choose to do heroin or meth or other hard drugs if they were giving it away for free on the street. You are making the assumption that all pot traffickers could immediately convert to another drug and the market for said drug would support that. I disagree. Perhaps a small portion of pot traffickers could fit in, I don't really know. However, the argument that we shouldn't consider legalizing a drug because those who distribute it would find something else illegal to do is just silly, imo. I don't know or care what they would do, like I said, maybe they would war it out with the other existing cartels and there would be mass casualties on both sides.
And, I agree with you on that, but building on my argument above, if you legalize MJ, wouldn't you also be forcing those who already participate in the trafficking and distribution of MJ to move to the harder stuff? Wouldn’t this increased flow of harder drugs be even a greater danger to society?
Once again, specualtion, I don't think there would be a radical increase in the use and demand for hard drugs.
A claim of some FBI stat doesn't make it fact. Post it. Prove it. Show me. I need evidence. I also wonder how many of these MJ users actually only use MJ, and how many of those innocent MJ pushers just push MJ, and how many of those innocent MJ traffickers just push MJ... Just some things to consider...
I have posted the fbi stats with a link labeling it.
Now look, you've made claims, and all I've asked is for proof. You've pulled sugar into the discussion. Again, all I've asked is for proof. If I told you that dog shit was safer than baby food, would you honestly start feeding your baby dog shit? I mean seriously... You're going to want a little more proof than just my claims before you even touch dog shit. At least, I would hope so.
Why should I bother? I posted a really good article from a good source full of info verifying my claims on sugar and you come back with some crap about you can find anything on the web to support anything. The facts on sugar are out there everywhere, not just on the site I linked. Like I said, it's not my job to educate you where you are lacking.
Have fun with it! Don't get your panties in a wad like that hit-and-run guy who slings shit and cries foul at every turn. Enjoy the board for what it is. If you're not having fun teasing and poking one another :poke:, you're on the wrong board.
I could say the exact same thing to your response to my post.
You obviously don't understand. Did I say, "pot is already illegal so it should stay that way"? And once again, I never said "if it should be legal it already would be". That's just your weak understanding of my position, and I'm not going to explain it again. I'm waiting for another bible thumper accusation...
Your basic position is that if it were legal you'd be okay with it, but its not so your okay with that. You are really just playing around with semantics afa what your position is. Your position I just stated would indicate that you believe there are good reasons it is illegal and if there were reasons to support it's legalization it would already be legal, and you would be okay with that too. Afa the bible thumpers crap I wasn't saying you are one as much as that is who's side you are standing on.
-
You can find anything on the Internet these days, but what about saturated fats? Wrestling with bears? And, biting the heads off Cobras?
Do you honestly believe that sugar consumption versus cannabis consumption are even comparable arguments?
Yes, you can find anything on the internet. There is such a thing as relaible sources though. Do you really want to find even better sources to rub your fac in with the facts on sugar?
Do we have a problem with bear wrestling or biting the heads off of cobra's?
They are comparable, but not compatible. The effects of sugar consumption on society are greater.
-
Here is an article that shows we are currently locking up between 12 and 14 % of state and federal inmates for mj related offenses. This adds up to over one billion / yr for that alone. Throw in the obscene amount of arrests for possession and the costs nears 10 billion /yr. Thios article also hits on the fact that casual smokers are the biggest target of the war on drugs as 42% of all drug arrests are for mj possession.
The absurdity continues (http://www.nowpublic.com/pot_prisoners_cost_americans_1_billion_a_year)
Still cant find the exact stats on %'s by crime. I am done looking for now. There is no doubt in my mind that when you throw in local and county jails, that one in four prisoners in jail for mj are there for possession. The one in six (prisoners in jail for mj) I provided earlier from an article may be a little off but not much at all.
One interesting theme I found several times while googling is that while violent crime %'s have been decreasing for years, incareration rates have been skyrocketing. Hmmm.
Still didn't find exact % by crime?
Try this one for some general points...
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/whos_in_prison_for_marij/beyond_the_claims.pdf (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/whos_in_prison_for_marij/beyond_the_claims.pdf)
I know... It's the mean old gubm'et doctoring the facts to keep MJ illegal.
Here's a good one for some facts... (Oh, by the way, these stats INCLUDE state and local numbers.)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/enforce.htm (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/enforce.htm)
Let's see, in 2007...
- Drug abuse offenses account for almost 13% of all arrests.
- MJ possession account for 42% of all drug related arrests.
- Less than 5.5% of all arrests are for MJ possession.
Arrests for MJ skyrocketing? Let's see...
In 1982...
- MJ: 455,600
- Heroin/Cocaine: 112,900
- Synthetics: 24,800
- Other: 82,900
In 2007...
- MJ: 829,600 (82% increase)
- Heroin/Cocaine: 582,100 (416% increase)
- Synthetics: 92,600 (273% increase)
- Other: 385,500 (365% increase)
I don't think the facts paint the picture the exact same way that you guys have been claiming.
Didn't you say that 1 in 6 are in jail for MJ possession? Or, was it for MJ related offenses?
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/whos_in_prison_for_marij/untangling_the_stats.pdf (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/whos_in_prison_for_marij/untangling_the_stats.pdf)
What's that?
Drug advocates often select only those portions of the available data that support their position, ignoring facts and context that would point to a very different conclusion.
Using data from 1997 (the most recent survey results available), the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) divided drug offenders in the state prison system into two general categories: trafficking offenses, which accounted for 70 percent of drug law violators, and possession offenses, accounting for about 27 percent.
Looking at it from the broader perspective of the entire prison population, BJS noted that in 1997 marijuana was involved in the conviction of only 2.7 percent of all state inmates. About 1.6 percent of the state prison population were held for offenses involving just marijuana, while just 0.7 percent were incarcerated with marijuana possession as the only charge.
BJS found that only 0.3 percent of all state inmates were firsttime marijuana possession offenders. And this statistic, it’s worth noting, refers to possession of any amount—even as much as a hundred pounds or more—not just “personal use” quantities.
Recent BJS estimates based on prisoner surveys show that at midyear 2002, approximately 8,400 state prison inmates were serving time for marijuana possession (any amount), and fewer than half of them were firsttime offenders. The point here is inescapable: Of the more than 1.2 million people serving time in state prisons across America, only 3,600 individuals were sentenced on a first offense for possession of marijuana. Again, this figure includes possession of any amount.
-
Wrong. Endangerment is a crime. When you drive drunk you are needlessly and recklessly endangering those around you regardless of whether they end up affected or not. Reckless driving is a crime because you know that if you let enough yahoos drive recklessly people are going to get needlessly hurt. Same with dui. Smoking pot in the privacy of your own home needlessly endangers no one.
Your argument was that MJ use was a "victimless crime", and my response was, you could argue the same thing about DUI. In MOST cases, nobody gets hurt, and nobody is victimized. That's it. Do I believe it? No... Both are equally crimes. Both are equally stupid.
Pure speculation and nothing else. I know that in my case, if pot were legalized, I would not choose to do heroin or meth or other hard drugs if they were giving it away for free on the street. You are making the assumption that all pot traffickers could immediately convert to another drug and the market for said drug would support that. I disagree. Perhaps a small portion of pot traffickers could fit in, I don't really know. However, the argument that we shouldn't consider legalizing a drug because those who distribute it would find something else illegal to do is just silly, imo. I don't know or care what they would do, like I said, maybe they would war it out with the other existing cartels and there would be mass casualties on both sides.
I agree that it's speculation, but do you really think that these criminals wouldn't continue to be criminals? You act like the majority of drug related crime would disappear overnight with the legalization of cannibas, but that's just speculation on your side. Is it not?
Once again, specualtion, I don't think there would be a radical increase in the use and demand for hard drugs.
I've posted the radical increases in arrests for these harder drugs in another post. That's with keeping MJ illegal. Do you really think that trafficking, distribution and consumption of these harder drugs would stay consistent? Speculation on both sides...
I have posted the fbi stats with a link labeling it.
I must have missed it. I'll go back and look for it. My bad... :thumbsup:
Why should I bother? I posted a really good article from a good source full of info verifying my claims on sugar and you come back with some crap about you can find anything on the web to support anything. The facts on sugar are out there everywhere, not just on the site I linked. Like I said, it's not my job to educate you where you are lacking.
Again, I don't think the affects, impacts or whatever related to sugar are anything reasonable for this discussion. Just my opinion there...
I could say the exact same thing to your response to my post.
I'm good. I'm not whining, crying, bitching, taking offense or running away every time somebody challenges me. It's all in good fun for the grown-ups. :poke:
Your basic position is that if it were legal you'd be okay with it, but its not so your okay with that. You are really just playing around with semantics afa what your position is. Your position I just stated would indicate that you believe there are good reasons it is illegal and if there were reasons to support it's legalization it would already be legal, and you would be okay with that too.
Personally, I don't believe that there are good reasons to legalize the drug. At least, nothing has convinced me in this thread, and the vitriol demonstrated by some to my position has incited unreasonable debates and comparisons to a swimmer, an actor, alcohol, sugar, Bible thumping and other silliness. When I ask for facts, I'm attacked as if I've criticized somebody's mother. This is exactly why it will likely never be legalized. Those on the pro-legalization side have to paint me as a religious zealot throwing words like "ignorance" around. I've never argued gateway drug in here, but some are quick to lump me into that argument as well. I can see it being legal one day, but I have serious concerns about the impact to society. We already have a serious down-breeding trend in our society with shitty public schools, but there's no benefit to society by legalizing MJ. And, the money argument is an incredibly weak argument. We've been dumping more and more money into our schools and legal system every year, and things just get worse. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not whining about the poking and prodding that we do; I'm just pointing out the silliness that accompanies this discussion.
Afa the bible thumpers crap I wasn't saying you are one as much as that is who's side you are standing on.
Don't hate on the hippies! I mean, you're standing on their side, but every time I posted something like that, it seems that sphincters tightened and feelings were hurt.
-
Your argument was that MJ use was a "victimless crime", and my response was, you could argue the same thing about DUI. In MOST cases, nobody gets hurt, and nobody is victimized. That's it. Do I believe it? No... Both are equally crimes. Both are equally stupid.
Amazing...
-
Your argument was that MJ use was a "victimless crime", and my response was, you could argue the same thing about DUI. In MOST cases, nobody gets hurt, and nobody is victimized. That's it. Do I believe it? No... Both are equally crimes. Both are equally stupid.
I don't know how to make it any simpler for you. Reckless endangerment of others is a crime. DUI recklessly endangers others. Driving recklessly is simlar to dui and is also a crime. Someone smoking pot at home recklessly endangers no one other than very arguably the smoker. If you can't step far away enough from the trees to see that then you are just being pig headed and irrational. Someone drives drunk x amount of times and an accident will happen. Joe the stoner lights up at hoime x amount of times and the result to him is he gets high x amount of times and no one is victimized.
I agree that it's speculation, but do you really think that these criminals wouldn't continue to be criminals? You act like the majority of drug related crime would disappear overnight with the legalization of cannibas, but that's just speculation on your side. Is it not?
Your argument here is laughable. What is your point? Keep pot illegal to give illegal pot traffickers something to do? lol.
I've posted the radical increases in arrests for these harder drugs in another post. That's with keeping MJ illegal. Do you really think that trafficking, distribution and consumption of these harder drugs would stay consistent? Speculation on both sides...
No, I think they would either fall or rise a small amount. Speculation on both sides? Yes. Your specualtion is radical with no proof whatsoever though.
-
Amazing...
I know... And, that's without a moderator-sized e-penis.
-
I know... And, that's without a moderator-sized e-penis.
Keep bangin' that drum...
-
I don't know how to make it any simpler for you. Reckless endangerment of others is a crime. DUI recklessly endangers others. Driving recklessly is simlar to dui and is also a crime. Someone smoking pot at home recklessly endangers no one other than very arguably the smoker. If you can't step far away enough from the trees to see that then you are just being pig headed and irrational. Someone drives drunk x amount of times and an accident will happen. Joe the stoner lights up at hoime x amount of times and the result to him is he gets high x amount of times and no one is victimized.
So focused on the short-sided near-term position... I'm only being as irrational as the "victimless crime" argument. Below is one of the issues I have for why I don't see legalizing the substance as a "victimless" issue. Kids are going to get their hands on it. BTW, I'm still waiting for AUChizzad's reference to support his claim that pot is more attainable to kids than alcohol, but kids will get their hands on anything. They're just able to get their hands on things that are legal or regulated to some degree. You guys claim "victimless"... Call it a doomsday scenario or whatever to float your boat, but I've seen it and lived through it. AND, I don't want to pay for it.
Today’s teens are smoking a more potent form of marijuana and starting use at increasingly younger ages during crucial brain development years.1 There is plenty of evidence indicating the ways pot impedes, even changes, the mental health of adolescents. In fact, those changes in the brain are similar to those caused by cocaine, heroin and alcohol.2 The overall impact that pot has on the brain can have long term consequences, and it’s up to you to influence your teen’s life when it comes to drugs.
Depression
Weekly or more frequent use of marijuana can double a teen’s risk of depression and anxiety.3 Teens who smoke marijuana when feeling depressed are also more likely to become addicted to marijuana or other illicit drugs. Eight percent of depressed teens abused or became dependent on marijuana during the year they experienced depression compared with only three percent of non-depressed teens.4
Teen girls are especially at risk. More girls than boys felt depressed in the course of a year and substance abuse can compound the problem. Daily use of marijuana among girls is associated with a fivefold increase in the odds of developing depression and anxiety.5
Suicidal Thoughts
Marijuana can also be linked to suicidal thoughts. A study based on data from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse found that teenagers 12 to 17 who smoke marijuana weekly are three times more likely to have thoughts of committing suicide.6 The same study linked increased anxiety and panic attacks to past year marijuana use.7
Schizophrenia
Several studies have documented marijuana’s link with symptoms of schizophrenia and report that cannabis is an independent risk factor for schizophrenia. Heavy users of marijuana at age 18 increased their risk of schizophrenia later in life by six times.8 Further reports have found marijuana use increased the risk of developing schizophrenia among people with no prior history of a disorder, and that early use of marijuana (age 15 vs. age 18) increased the risk even more.9 In addition, youth with a personal or family history of schizophrenia are at an even greater risk of marijuana-induced psychosis.10
Let your teens know you don’t want them using marijuana. Their mental health may depend on it.
1. El Sohly, M.A. University of Mississippi Potency Monitoring Project, 2004
2. Marijuana: Facts Parents Need to Know, Revised, NIDA, November 1998
3. Patton, GC et al. Cannabis use and mental health in young people: cohort study. British Medical Journal, 325:1195-1198, 2002.
4. 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, SAMHSA, 2007. Table 6.36B. http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k6nsduh/tabs/Sect6peTabs36to37.pdf
5. Patton, G.Cet al. Cannabis use and mental health in young people: cohort study. BMJ 325, 1195-1198, 2002.
6. Greenblatt, J. (1998), Adolescent self-reported behaviors and their association with marijuana use. National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1994-1996 SAMHSA
7. Ibid.
8. Andreasson, S. et al. Cannabis and schizophrenia: A longitudinal study of Swedish conscripts. Lancet, 26: 1483-1486, 1987
9. Arseneault L., et al. Causal association between cannabis and psychosis: examination of the evidence. British Journal of Psychiatry, 184: 110-117, 2004
10. van Os et al. (Dec. 2004) Prospective cohort study of cannabis use, predisposition for psychosis, and psychotic symptoms in young people, British Medical Journal, 330
And, another...
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html)
And another...
http://behavioural-psychology.suite101.com/article.cfm/marijuana_triggers_mental_illness (http://behavioural-psychology.suite101.com/article.cfm/marijuana_triggers_mental_illness)
Your argument here is laughable. What is your point? Keep pot illegal to give illegal pot traffickers something to do? lol.
I'm just saying, let's think about this from a rational perspective without buying into any party lines. There are larger impacts here, and I don't think that anyone is being fair to the discussion.
No, I think they would either fall or rise a small amount. Speculation on both sides? Yes. Your specualtion is radical with no proof whatsoever though.
I would argue the exact opposite suggesting that it's your speculation that is radical (the legalization of a harmful narcotic) with absolutely no proof whatsoever.
-
Keep bangin' that drum...
:blah:
-
Personally, I don't believe that there are good reasons to legalize the drug. At least, nothing has convinced me in this thread
I'm just saying, let's think about this from a rational perspective without buying into any party lines. There are larger impacts here, and I don't think that anyone is being fair to the discussion.
What is your position regarding the increased monies MJ would bring into the economy and goverment via taxes and regulations? I understand that once the evil gubment gets its hands on it, it most likely won't be used efficiently, but I know the extra cash flow is needed, especially today. Just interested in your take, bible-thumper.
-
So focused on the short-sided near-term position... I'm only being as irrational as the "victimless crime" argument. Below is one of the issues I have for why I don't see legalizing the substance as a "victimless" issue. Kids are going to get their hands on it. BTW, I'm still waiting for AUChizzad's reference to support his claim that pot is more attainable to kids than alcohol, but kids will get their hands on anything. They're just able to get their hands on things that are legal or regulated to some degree. You guys claim "victimless"... Call it a doomsday scenario or whatever to float your boat, but I've seen it and lived through it. AND, I don't want to pay for it.
I support the claim by the fact that I was in high school this century, and I knew 100 people I could get weed from, but the only way I could get alcohol was to have the balls to go up to the liquor store clerk with a fake ID.
But since you have to have a link for everything (to later ignore)...
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2005_3896377 (http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2005_3896377)
More Teens Say Drugs Are Available In Their Schools
Rebecca Carroll | Houston Chronicle | 08/19/2005
WASHINGTON - More teens are saying there are drugs in their schools, and those who have access to them are more likely to try them, said a Columbia University survey released Thursday.
Twenty-eight percent of respondents reported that drugs are used, kept or sold at their middle schools, a 47 percent jump since 2002, according to the 10th annual teen survey by Columbia's National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse.
The number of high schoolers saying drugs are at their schools rose 41 percent in the past three years, to 62 percent, the survey said.
Twelve- to 17-year-olds who report that there are drugs in their schools are three times likelier to try marijuana and twice as likely to drink alcohol than teens who say their schools are drug-free, the survey showed.
"Availability is the mother of use," said Joseph Califano Jr., the center's president. "We really are putting an enormous number of 12- to 17-year-olds at great risk."
Most of the teens surveyed — 58 percent — said the legality of cigarettes has no effect on their decision to smoke or abstain, and 48 percent said the fact that marijuana is illegal doesn't affect whether they use it.
Forty-two percent of the youths said they can buy marijuana within a day, and 21 percent can buy it in an hour.
The past year saw an 86 percent increase in the percentage of teens who know a friend or classmate who has abused prescription drugs, from 14 percent to 26 percent of teens surveyed.
Meanwhile, the survey found teens who viewed drugs as morally wrong were significantly less likely to try them, as were those who felt their parents would be "extremely upset" to discover drug use.
The report found that teens who confided in their parents were at much lower risk of drug abuse than teens who turn first to another adult.
"If this survey does anything, it really shouts to parents: You cannot outsource your responsibility to law enforcement or the schools," Califano said. "I think when parents feel as strongly about drugs in the schools as they do about asbestos in the schools, we'll start getting the drugs out of the schools."
The survey was conducted by phone and involved 1,000 randomly selected youths ages 12 to 17 and 829 parents.
Twenty-six percent of the teens said someone nearby could hear their answers. The margin of sampling error is 3.1 percentage points for teens and 3.4 percentage points for parents.
Now post your source that states the opposite is true. I'll wait...
And I thought we're not supposed to compare it to alcohol?
That's only because of the glaring facts that are COMMON KNOWLEDGE that alcohol is more harmful than marijuana. Here's the litmus test on common knowledge. Without bias, type in the two words "marijuana alcohol" without quotes. I'll wait...
Yeah, EVERY link that compares the two concludes this. Just from the front page...
(I'll only post a line or two since COMMON KNOWLEDGE such as this shouldn't have to saturate this post. But I encourage you to read each of these articles from top to bottom so that you can be sure I'm not using your tactic of wildly taking quotes out of context)
http://www.physorg.com/news157280425.html (http://www.physorg.com/news157280425.html)
Developing Brains: Alcohol Worse than Marijuana (PhysOrg.com) -- It appears that when it comes to teen brain development, parents should be more worried about alcohol abuse than marijuana abuse. Two recent studies have been published showing that alcohol -- a legal substance (though not legal for teens in the U.S.) -- is considered more dangerous than marijuana, which is illegal in many countries.
http://www.progress.org/2005/drc68.htm (http://www.progress.org/2005/drc68.htm)
Medical Fact: Marijuana is Safer Than Alcohol
Ten states have passed "medical marijuana" laws. Now an even more embarrassing issue has arisen that makes governments look stupid -- rules and laws are badly inconsistent when it comes to penalties for marijuana compared to alcohol, even though alcohol is known to be less safe.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19278130 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19278130)
Abnormalities have been seen in brain structure volume, white matter quality, and activation to cognitive tasks, even in youth with as little as 1-2 years of heavy drinking and consumption levels of 20 drinks per month, especially if > 4-5 drinks are consumed on a single occasion. Heavy marijuana users show some subtle anomalies too, but generally not the same degree of divergence from demographically similar non-using adolescents.
http://www.physorg.com/news84468374.html (http://www.physorg.com/news84468374.html)
No 'smoking' gun -- Research indicates teen marijuana use does not predict drug, alcohol abuse
December 4th, 2006
Marijuana is not a "gateway" drug that predicts or eventually leads to substance abuse, suggests a 12-year University of Pittsburgh study. The study, which found that young men who chose to initiate their drug use with marijuana were no more likely to go on to abuse drugs or alcohol than those who smoked or drank first, calls into question the long-held belief that has shaped prevention efforts and governmental policy for six decades.
I would go on, but you'll just continue to poo poo away every fact I waste a whole 10 seconds looking up as some biased crap...you know, the Houston Chronicle, that physorg.com (the standard online hard science news source) and that pesky National Center for Biotechnology Information's .gov site are just full of dope smoking hippie propaganda lies...
-
What is your position regarding the increased monies MJ would bring into the economy and goverment via taxes and regulations? I understand that once the evil gubment gets its hands on it, it most likely won't be used efficiently, but I know the extra cash flow is needed, especially today. Just interested in your take, bible-thumper.
Well cock-gobbler, I just don't think it would be that significant. I hear this argument, but what are we really talking about? The only economic boost would come from the enterprises brought about by the legalization, and anything the government gets would just fund more healthcare and future entitlement programs for deadbeats and Ne'er-do-wells as identified by the latest polling data. It certainly wouldn't be an economic boom or anything like Carlos Santana suggested last week. (Another fuggin' musician... good one... but just another burnout musician...) Let's look at this from a fact based perspective. How big do we think the black-market/underground industry is? How big do you think it would be once it becomes legal? Do we allow promotion of it? What happens to farming in America? Do we allow internal production, or do we import? What are we really going to do?
-
How big do we think the black-market/underground industry is?
Big.
How big do you think it would be once it becomes legal?
As big or bigger.
Do we allow promotion of it?
Yes. Just like we allow promotion of alcohol and tobacco, which are more dangerous and unhealthy.
What happens to farming in America?
It gets a much needed boost.
Do we allow internal production, or do we import?
Internal. No different from the alcohol or tobacco industry.
-
Well cock-gobbler, I just don't think it would be that significant. I hear this argument, but what are we really talking about? The only economic boost would come from the enterprises brought about by the legalization, and anything the government gets would just fund more healthcare and future entitlement programs for deadbeats and Ne'er-do-wells as identified by the latest polling data. It certainly wouldn't be an economic boom or anything like Carlos Santana suggested last week. (Another fuggin' musician... good one... but just another burnout musician...) Let's look at this from a fact based perspective. How big do we think the black-market/underground industry is? How big do you think it would be once it becomes legal? Do we allow promotion of it? What happens to farming in America? Do we allow internal production, or do we import? What are we really going to do?
We're gonna smoke it, dipshit.
Good points to research. Not now, but hopefully soon.
-
Iam taking a brief hiatus fromthis thread,but I'll be back.
-
Bored enough to waste 5 more minutes of googling...
http://bily.org/PAGES/resources/TeensCanAccessDrugsEasily.pdf (http://bily.org/PAGES/resources/TeensCanAccessDrugsEasily.pdf)
According to the 2008 National Survey of American Attitudes on Substance Abuse XIII, teens can easily obtain marijuana and prescription drugs—with many saying these drugs are easier to obtain than beer. The survey was released by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University today in Washington, D.C.
The survey found that 42 percent of 12- to 17-year olds can buy marijuana in a day or less; 23 percent in an hour or less. In addition, half of 16- and 17-year olds say that among their age group smoking marijuana is more common than smoking cigarettes and 23 percent of teens find it easier to buy then beer.
http://www.decp.org/documents/pdfs/WhatNew/CASA%202008%20Teen%20Survey.pdf (http://www.decp.org/documents/pdfs/WhatNew/CASA%202008%20Teen%20Survey.pdf)
Half of 16- and 17-year olds say that among their age group smoking marijuana is more common
than smoking cigarettes.
Marijuana continues to be easier to buy than beer: 23 percent of teens find it easiest to buy
compared to 15 percent who find beer easiest to buy.
-
Bored enough to waste 5 more minutes of googling...
http://bily.org/PAGES/resources/TeensCanAccessDrugsEasily.pdf (http://bily.org/PAGES/resources/TeensCanAccessDrugsEasily.pdf)
http://www.decp.org/documents/pdfs/WhatNew/CASA%202008%20Teen%20Survey.pdf (http://www.decp.org/documents/pdfs/WhatNew/CASA%202008%20Teen%20Survey.pdf)
:jaw: I feel that things have changed a bit since my teenage years.
-
:jaw: I feel that things have changed a bit since my teenage years.
That, or maybe this poll was taken somewhere other than the Wiregrass.
-
I saw this today and thought it was interesting:
Drug use in Portugal plunges after decriminalization (http://txfx.net/2009/04/08/drug-use-in-portugal-plunges-after-decriminalization/)
-
I saw this today and thought it was interesting:
Drug use in Portugal plunges after decriminalization (http://txfx.net/2009/04/08/drug-use-in-portugal-plunges-after-decriminalization/)
Interesting information, Ogre; but it does leave out that Portugal has implemented an aggressive National Plan Against Drug Use and Drug Abuse starting with children. Very smart approach, I think, which is probably more responsible for the dramatic decline than the actual 'decriminalization' ascribed to by your source.
I would incline to agree to think that this integrated approach would be a better way to spend FedGov tax money. By the way, I noticed that they've also included alcohol as a part of this program too. I wonder if alcohol consumption has also been going down?
From the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction:
...
Prevention
The Portuguese ‘National plan against drugs and drug addiction 2005–12’ aims to: (i) increase the number of drug prevention programmes based on scientific evidence; (ii) increase the number of selective prevention programmes directed to vulnerable groups; and (iii) improve the process of selection, monitoring and evaluation of prevention programmes. In the framework of the National plan against drugs and drug addiction 2005–12, the operational plan of integrated responses (PORI) is an intervention framework targeted at drug demand reduction and organised at a local/regional level. The principles are: (i) to integrate responses; (ii) to profit from synergies at local level; (iii) to empower citizens; and (iv) to promote their participation in partnerships that address identified needs of the community. Thus, in each specific territory, an intervention may address different problems and bring together different partners, working in different settings, depending on the identified needs.
Universal drug prevention is part of the Portuguese school curriculum. Prevention programmes are delivered through training sessions, awareness-raising activities and dissemination of information through printed material. One initiative undertaken since 2006 is the ‘Safe schools’ programme, whereby law enforcement agents patrol the areas surrounding schools to prevent and protect from criminal activities such as drug trafficking in the surrounding area, are also involved in awareness and training activities in teaching establishments (targeting students, parents, school staff and law enforcement agents). This initiative focuses on drug abuse and alcoholism, road safety, self-protection, risk prevention and security in the school community.
Selective prevention is mostly targeted at school drop-outs and deprived neighborhoods, and is given high priority from both a political and practical perspective. Selective prevention in recreational settings is carried out by a few teams and focuses on direct counselling and information.
Special characteristics of the prevention culture in Portugal within the European context are the decentralisation of implementation at local level via focused intervention programmes, strong momentum towards better quality control, tight monitoring and increasing interest in selective prevention.
...
Source:
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/country-overviews/pt (http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/country-overviews/pt)
I haven't read this entire site by the way; there may be some other mitigating circumstances as well.
-
Interesting information, Ogre; but it does leave out that Portugal has implemented an aggressive National Plan Against Drug Use and Drug Abuse starting with children. Very smart approach, I think,
...
From the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction:
Source:
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/country-overviews/pt (http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/country-overviews/pt)
I haven't read this entire site by the way; there may be some other mitigating circumstances as well.
This information appears there too, I think the Portuguese are onto something with their programs, I'd support something like this for the U. S.:
National drug laws
The legal framework in place since July 2001, although decriminalising illicit drug use, maintains drug use as an illicit behaviour and also maintains the illegal status for all drugs included in the relevant United Nations Conventions. However, a person caught in possession of a quantity of drugs for personal use (established by law), without any suspicion of being involved in drug trafficking, will be evaluated by a local Commission for Drug Addiction Dissuasion composed of a lawyer, a doctor and a social worker. Sanctions can be applied, but the main objective is to explore the need for treatment and to promote healthy recovery.
Drug trafficking may be sentenced to one to 12 years imprisonment depending on different criteria, one of them being the nature of the substance supplied. For users who sell drugs to finance their own consumption, the penalty is reduced.
-
This information appears there too, I think the Portuguese are onto something with their programs, I'd support something like this for the U. S.:
Found this information on the same site; it appears that 'Drug Related Deaths' have increased in Portugal since decriminalization and over a later period over-lapping the chart that you have cited:
...
Drug-related deaths
There are two sources of information about drug-related deaths in Portugal: the General Mortality Registry of the Statistics National Institute and the Special Registry of the National Institute of Forensic Medicine. The most reliable data are provided by the Special Registry and are based on toxicological tests.
In 2006, 216 direct drug-related deaths were reported by the Special Register, defined as an individual whose post-mortem toxicological analyses is positive for any illicit drug of abuse. The national DRD definition relates to all positive toxicological results for drugs whatever the cause of death (overdose, traffic accident, etc), and is not in line with the EMCDDA DRD standard. The 2006 figure is close to that registered in 2005 (219 cases) but represents an increase in comparison with previous years (156 in 2004, 152 in 2003, 156 in 2002). In approximately 61.6 % of cases, opiates or opiates in combination with other substances (mainly cocaine or alcohol) were the main substance involved in drug-related deaths. In 2005 and 2004, the proportion was 67 % and 69 % respectively. Data from the General Mortality registry are not comparable with the data from the Special Registry.
...
Still, all things considered this might be more effective approach than the current War on Drugs approach favored here. These scientifically documented deaths seem to be low overall.
-
Found this information on the same site; it appears that 'Drug Related Deaths' have increased in Portugal since decriminalization and over a later period over-lapping the chart that you have cited:
Still, all things considered this might be more effective approach than the current War on Drugs approach favored here. These scientifically documented deaths seem to be low overall.
How many of those illicit drug deaths were marijuana related?
-
How many of those illicit drug deaths were marijuana related?
I'll read it more thoroughly and find out when I have a moment. Offhand it does say that marijuana is the most used drug in Europe; there may (or may not) be some correlation there with drug deaths.
I think Portugal does have an interesting program as long as one looks at the entire picture; decriminalization is part of a larger, integrated process that determined that declining use result.
-
How many of those illicit drug deaths were marijuana related?
There looks like no breakout for that information for Portugal. Based on the information posted above more deaths were attributed to a combination of drugs (and alcohol) than anything else (61 %); there's no telling from that information how many deaths were strictly attributable to cannabis use.
This is a lengthy report that might tell us:
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/annual-report/2008 (http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/annual-report/2008)
And there's tons of drug related death data (in Europe) here:
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/themes/key-indicators/drd (http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/themes/key-indicators/drd)
I found this table interesting too; it shows crime statistics for drug related crimes in Europe; specifically the 'Drug Types in Crime Reports for Drug Law Offenses' in European countries where cannabis was 'legalized' to a lesser or greater degree; the top drug by far is cannabis (even though its legal):
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/stats08/dlotab3a (http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/stats08/dlotab3a)
Portugal, by the way, reports that 59.1 % of drug law offenses relate to cannabis (a 'legal' drug).
I need to study the European models more; obviously there's more to legalization as they define it than 'legalizing it' as Libertarians define it.
-
There looks like no breakout for that information for Portugal. Based on the information posted above more deaths were attributed to a combination of drugs (and alcohol) than anything else (61 %); there's no telling from that information how many deaths were strictly attributable to cannabis use.
I'll save you the trouble. There has never been a direct marijuana related death throughout history.
-
In a nutshell (and correct me if I'm wrong)...
It would seem that (in Portugal) they start you off early with anti-drug messages and education. Cannabis is currently being decriminalized. Therefore, it's still viewed as an illegal substance, when in acutality, the law provides for this: However, a person caught in possession of a quantity of drugs for personal use (established by law), without any suspicion of being involved in drug trafficking, will be evaluated by a local Commission for Drug Addiction Dissuasion composed of a lawyer, a doctor and a social worker. Sanctions can be applied, but the main objective is to explore the need for treatment and to promote healthy recovery.
So, it's legal to carry it and smoke it, and if you're caught, you gotta sit down with lawyer, doctor, and social worker, listen to them persuade you to stop smoking cannabis, and essentially leave with no more than a slap on the wrist.
I, for one, would be all for this. Provide counseling and management of users...educate the kids that it's bad for you...utilize other means to get the message across that drugs are bad (mmmkay?)...but keep it legal. That way, it's an adult's decision on whether or not they want to partake of it, and it's an informed decision at that.
-
I'll save you the trouble. There has never been a direct marijuana related death throughout history.
I will call bullshit on this.
There may have never been anyone OD on marijuana throughout history but to say there has never been a death that was marijuana related makes no sense.
-
I will call bullshit on this.
There may have never been anyone OD on marijuana throughout history but to say there has never been a death that was marijuana related makes no sense.
Agreed, I had a friend when we were Freshman in college that got high, got in his jeep, ran in a ditch, wrecked and sadly he is no longer with us today b/c of it.
Ok, that is my only blurb about this topic, which I have stayed out of. I take the Sani approach to this topic:
I don't give a shit what you do as long as it does not interfere with my freedoms of choice.
-
What else would you consider a direct marijuana-related death?
See above.
You aren't suggesting it was the jeep's or the ditch's fault are you?
-
I'll save you the trouble. There has never been a direct marijuana related death throughout history.
So what?
It's still illegal. I see things as they are not as I want them to be.
Besides, where's the scientific and medical proof? I've still seen nothing but anecdotal evidence and your word.
-
So what?
It's still illegal. I see things as they are not as I want them to be.
Besides, where's the scientific and medical proof? I've still seen nothing but anecdotal evidence and your word.
How many times must we play this game? What's the point? You'll ignore this just like every other link I've provided...
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30 (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30)
Annual Causes of Death in the United States
Tobacco 435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000
Alcohol 85,000
Microbial Agents 75,000
Toxic Agents 55,000
Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,347
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000
Suicide 30,622
Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000
Homicide 20,308
Sexual Behaviors 20,000
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,0001
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600
Marijuana 0
An exhaustive search of the literature finds no credible reports of deaths induced by marijuana. The US Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) records instances of drug mentions in medical examiners' reports, and though marijuana is mentioned, it is usually in combination with alcohol or other drugs. Marijuana alone has not been shown to cause an overdose death.
Source:
National Academy Press, 1999), available on the web at http://www.nap.edu/html/marimed/; and US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition" (Docket #86-22), September 6, 1988, p. 57.
http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-2/Link-between-cannabis-and-death-still-not-established-5588-1/ (http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-2/Link-between-cannabis-and-death-still-not-established-5588-1/)
Although the use of cannabis is not harmless, its link with death is still not established, argues a senior researcher in this week's BMJ.
Two large studies reported no increase in death associated with the use of cannabis. Even diseases that might be related to long term cannabis use are unlikely to have a sizeable public health impact because, unlike users of tobacco and alcohol, most people who try cannabis quit relatively early in their adult lives, writes the author.
Exposure to smoke is generally much lower in cannabis than in tobacco cigarette smokers, even taking into account the larger exposure per puff. Existing studies do not support a link between the use of cannabis and heart disease, the leading cause of death in many Western countries, he adds. Furthermore, cannabis does not contain nicotine, a chemical contained in tobacco that is addicting and contributes to the risk of heart disease.
However, two caveats must be noted regarding available data, warns the author. Firstly, the studies to date have not followed cannabis smokers into later adult life so it might be too early to detect an increase risk of chronic diseases that are potentially associated with the use of cannabis.
Secondly, the low rate of regular cannabis use and the high rate of discontinuation during young adulthood may reflect the illegality and social disapproval of the use of cannabis. This means that we cannot assume that smoking cannabis would continue to have the same small impact on mortality if its use were to be decriminalised or legalised.
While the use of cannabis is not harmless, our current knowledge does not support the assertion that it has an adverse impact on death rates, says the author. Common sense should dictate measures to minimise adverse effects. These include discouraging use by teenagers, not using when driving or operating heavy machinery, not using excessively, and cautioning people with known coronary heart disease.
-
You are using two different sticks to measure by...
Now I understand why this has gone on as many pages as it has.
-
In a nutshell (and correct me if I'm wrong)...
...
Yes, I certainly did read that too Thrilla. Thanks for posting it again.
What you did not post is that in Portugal they also tightly and rigorously control how much cannabis (and other substances) one can have in one's possession for personal use in addition to the strict school age education programs against using it before becoming old enough to use it.
They approach all drug use (including alcohol) as an illness too.
My point in posting the information from that European source is to demonstrate that there's more to the story than simply just making it legal; hence there are other mitigating circumstances that brought about the result that Ogre posted than just making it legal.
As I mentioned to AUChizad above I try to see things as they are not as I would like them to be (but you know that I have an admitted bias against this substance and you know why, I told everyone about it 15,000 posts ago); if it is ever legalized/decriminalized in America this is exactly the type of program that FedGov (Republicans and Democrats, alike) will grant us in their magnanimity; they are not just going to simply decriminalize/legalize it.
The things that I like about the Portuguese approach are that they treat all drug use as an illness and they have an educated, science-based approach in teaching kids not to use any drugs at all (including alcohol). That's how they got the results that Ogre posted, not just by decriminalizing it. And I also like that they still treat trafficking and drug-dealing as criminal activity.
-
You are using two different sticks to measure by...
Now I understand why this has gone on as many pages as it has.
EVEN IF we are talking indirect deaths, marijuana pales in comparison to alcohol.
I already posted the citation on that. Instead of me wasting more time stating the obvious, go back and actually read what I've provided.
-
How many times must we play this game? What's the point? You'll ignore this just like every other link I've provided...
...
Yes, I did read that, AUChizad, and the source for the MJ deaths is this:
[FOOTNOTE 7, ATTRIBUTED TO THE DEATHS BY MJ/CANNABIS USE]
(1996): "Each year, use of NSAIDs (Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs) accounts for an estimated 7,600 deaths and 76,000 hospitalizations in the United States." (NSAIDs include aspirin, ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, ketoprofen, and tiaprofenic acid.)
Source:
Robyn Tamblyn, PhD; Laeora Berkson, MD, MHPE, FRCPC; W. Dale Jauphinee, MD, FRCPC; David Gayton, MD, PhD, FRCPC; Roland Grad, MD, MSc; Allen Huang, MD, FRCPC; Lisa Isaac, PhD; Peter McLeod, MD, FRCPC; and Linda Snell, MD, MHPE, FRCPC, "Unnecessary Prescribing of NSAIDs and the Management of NSAID-Related Gastropathy in Medical Practice," Annals of Internal Medicine (Washington, DC: American College of Physicians, 1997), September 15, 1997, 127:429-438, from the web at http://www.acponline.org/journals/annals/15sep97/nsaid.htm, last accessed Feb. 14, 2001, citing Fries, JF, "Assessing and understanding patient risk," Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology Supplement, 1992;92:21-4.
It's over 10 years old and has nothing to do with cannabis/marijuana.
-
Yes, I certainly did read that too Thrilla. Thanks for posting it again.
What you did not post is that in Portugal they also tightly and rigorously control how much cannabis (and other substances) one can have in one's possession for personal use in addition to the strict school age education programs against using it before becoming old enough to use it.
They approach all drug use (including alcohol) as an illness too.
My point in posting the information from that European source is to demonstrate that there's more to the story than simply just making it legal; hence there are other mitigating circumstances that brought about the result that Ogre posted than just making it legal.
As I mentioned to AUChizad above I try to see things as they are not as I would like them to be (but you know that I have an admitted bias against this substance and you know why, I told everyone about it 15,000 posts ago); if it is ever legalized/decriminalized in America this is exactly the type of program that FedGov (Republicans and Democrats, alike) will grant us in their magnanimity; they are not just going to simply decriminalize/legalize it.
The things that I like about the Portuguese approach are that they treat all drug use as an illness and they have an educated, science-based approach in teaching kids not to use any drugs at all (including alcohol). That's how they got the results that Ogre posted, not just by decriminalizing it. And I also like that they still treat trafficking and drug-dealing as criminal activity.
How would you feel about being required to go to some bullshit rehabilitation course if you get caught with a beer or cigar despite knowing full well you don't have an addiction problem?
-
EVEN IF we are talking indirect deaths, marijuana pales in comparison to alcohol.
You chose the wording not I.
-
Yes, I did read that, AUChizad, and the source for the MJ deaths is this:
It's over 10 years old and has nothing to do with cannabis/marijuana.
:eyeroll:
Is WebMD accurate enough for you?
http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20030918/marijuana-smoking-doesnt-kill (http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20030918/marijuana-smoking-doesnt-kill)
Marijuana Smoking Doesn't Kill
Illegal Herb Not Harmless, but Data Show No Link to Death
By Daniel J. DeNoon
WebMD Health News
Sept. 18, 2003 -- Marijuana smoking isn't harmless, but at least it won't kill you.
It's been feared that marijuana smoke, like tobacco smoke, causes cancer and heart disease. The evidence argues otherwise, writes Stephen Sidney, MD, associate director for research for Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif., in the Sept 20 issue of The British Medical Journal.
"Although the use of [marijuana] is not harmless, the current knowledge base does not support the assertion that it has any notable adverse public health impact in relation to mortality," Sidney concludes.
No Marijuana Deaths in 2 Large Studies
Sidney points to two large studies. The first is from (where else?) California. A large HMO looked at 65,177 men and women age 15-49. Over 10 years, marijuana users died no sooner than nonusers.
The second study looked at 45,450 Swedish army conscripts. They were 18-20 years old when asked about marijuana use. Fifteen years later, the marijuana users were just as likely to remain alive as nonusers.
And since marijuana smoking can't kill outright -- there's no such thing as a fatal marijuana overdose -- short-term use isn't deadly. Long-term use can't be good for you. But Sidney notes that most marijuana smokers don't become long-term users.
One worry about marijuana smoke is that it is inhaled, and held, deep in the lungs. But the typical user smokes only one marijuana cigarette -- or less -- a day. Tobacco users often smoke 20 or more cigarettes daily. Moreover, tobacco contains nicotine, a highly addictive substance. Marijuana, Sidney concludes, is less likely to harm than tobacco.
A 2001 study suggested that marijuana smoking increases the risk of heart attack in the hour immediately after smoking. But this seems to be the case in no more than one-fifth of 1% of heart attacks -- a very rare risk indeed.
More Marijuana Deaths in the Future?
Marijuana users shouldn't cancel their life insurance policies just yet. Sidney warns that longer-term data may indeed show that marijuana smoking eventually raises the risk of premature death.
And if marijuana is legalized, long-term use may become more common. If this is the case, there certainly will be more long-term effects of marijuana use.
SOURCE: Sidney, S. The British Medical Journal, Sept. 20, 2003; vol 327: pp 635-636.
-
You chose the wording not I.
I said:
There has never been a direct marijuana related death throughout history.
-
Bored enough to waste 5 more minutes of googling...
http://bily.org/PAGES/resources/TeensCanAccessDrugsEasily.pdf (http://bily.org/PAGES/resources/TeensCanAccessDrugsEasily.pdf)
http://www.decp.org/documents/pdfs/WhatNew/CASA%202008%20Teen%20Survey.pdf (http://www.decp.org/documents/pdfs/WhatNew/CASA%202008%20Teen%20Survey.pdf)
Like I originally said, you can find stats on both sides of this...
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/du.htm (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/du.htm)
Reported drug and alcohol use by high school seniors, 2007
Used within the last:
------------------------------------
Drugs 12 months 30 days
------------------------------------
Alcohol 66.4 % 44.4 %
Marijuana 31.7 18.8
Other opiates 9.2 3.8
Stimulants 7.5 3.7
Sedatives 6.2 2.7
Tranquilizers 6.2 2.6
Cocaine 5.2 2.0
Hallucinogens 5.4 1.7
Inhalants 3.7 1.2
Steroids 1.4 1.0
Heroin 0.9 0.4
I thought teens are supposed to be smoking more pot... :blink:
-
Agreed, I had a friend when we were Freshman in college that got high, got in his jeep, ran in a ditch, wrecked and sadly he is no longer with us today b/c of it.
Ok, that is my only blurb about this topic, which I have stayed out of. I take the Sani approach to this topic:
I am very sorry to hear about that, AUTiger1. This is similar to the reason for my admitted bias against cannabis; it lead directly to destructive behavior in two of my family members (one of whom is now dead).
-
How would you feel about being required to go to some bullshit rehabilitation course if you get caught with a beer or cigar despite knowing full well you don't have an addiction problem?
If it would help control the use/abuse of the rest of the mind-altering substances you want to legalize I'm all for it. Too many people abuse alcohol as it is now (yes, I've done it too).
I think there's some validity to the Portuguese approach. It is showing some very positive, responsible results.
-
Like I originally said, you can find stats on both sides of this...
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/du.htm (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/du.htm)
I thought teens are supposed to be smoking more pot... :blink:
Since when does availability = use?
You claimed that I was talking out my ass when I said that marijuana is easier to get than alcohol for high school kids. You claimed that once it was legal there would just be rampant use amongst high schoolers.
Despite the fact (supported by not only my own experience, but statistical evidence) that it is easier to GET marijuana, kids still use alcohol more frequently.
-
:eyeroll:
Is WebMD accurate enough for you?
http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20030918/marijuana-smoking-doesnt-kill (http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20030918/marijuana-smoking-doesnt-kill)
That is, in fact, interesting; I'll read through it thoroughly. Thanks.
-
:eyeroll:
By the way, I did note the condescending tone of the 'eye-roll smiley'; it doesn't de-legitimize my point with your previous source chart. The footnoted source is irrelevant to the data that the chart shows about cannabis deaths.
Nevertheless, I'll read the WebMD article (and check the sources too).
-
Since when does availability = use?
You claimed that I was talking out my ass when I said that marijuana is easier to get than alcohol for high school kids. You claimed that once it was legal there would just be rampant use amongst high schoolers.
Despite the fact (supported by not only my own experience, but statistical evidence) that it is easier to GET marijuana, kids still use alcohol more frequently.
Well, you're either talking out of your ass right now, or you can't remember what bullshit you say from one post to the next. Let's review...
MORE kids are smoking marijuana now at a "developmental age" because they can't their hands on alcohol because they can't purchase it from the stores, and there's no (notable) black market for alcohol.
I believe that your intention was very clear and meant to convince me that pot use among teens was more than alcohol use is today. Now, you're backing off that claim. You posted that... Not me... :rofl:
-
I am very sorry to hear about that, AUTiger1. This is similar to the reason for my admitted bias against cannabis; it lead directly to destructive behavior in two of my family members (one of whom is now dead).
He was a good guy, you fuckers would have loved him.....I don't know if he would have ended up pitching for the Tigers, but damn good chance he could have. He could hurl a horsehide in the high 80's low 90's and was one intimidating mother to look at from homeplate. He just didn't have the grades to go straight D-1.
-
He was a good guy, you fuckers would have loved him.....I don't know if he would have ended up pitching for the Tigers, but damn good chance he could have. He could hurl a horsehide in the high 80's low 90's and was one intimidating mother to look at from homeplate. He just didn't have the grades to go straight D-1.
Sad loss. A waste of what could have been a great life. I think that this story has been repeated all-too-often with alcohol and drug abuse.
-
Well, you're either talking out of your ass right now, or you can't remember what bullshit you say from one post to the next. Let's review...
I believe that your intention was very clear and meant to convince me that pot use among teens was more than alcohol use is today. Now, you're backing off that claim. You posted that... Not me... :rofl:
There you go again, taking my quotes out of context when you're backed into a corner...
Why not use the whole quote? First of all, this is a ridiculous stretch of a doomsday scenario you've presented. BUT if marijuana were actually legalized, you wouldn't be able to get it until you were 21, or AT LEAST 18 (at least 19 in Alabama). MORE kids are smoking marijuana now at a "developmental age" because they can't their hands on alcohol because they can't purchase it from the stores, and there's no (notable) black market for alcohol.
I proclaimed that more kids are smoking marijuana now that is illegal and being sold through 15 year olds growing it in their bedrooms, than if it were legal, regulated, and purchased at the package store. No where did I say that MORE kids are smoking pot than drinking alcohol.
-
I said:
What you said needs a definition from you because you are using it differently depending on which one suits your needs.
So for those of us keeping score at home bust the definition for "direct".
I'll hang up and listen.
-
You chose the wording not I.
It seems we're splitting hairs. What's this?
https://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/ME2004/StateMetroProfiles/BostonCambridge.htm
Deaths
2003 2004
Marijuana 18 7
https://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/ME2004/StateMetroProfiles/BuffaloCheektowaga.htm
Deaths
2003 2004
Marijuana 7 13
https://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/ME2004/StateMetroProfiles/ChicagoNaperville.htm
Deaths
2004
Marijuana 13
https://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/ME2004/StateMetroProfiles/ClevelandElyria.htm
Deaths
2003 2004
Marijuana 5 4
https://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/ME2004/StateMetroProfiles/DenverAurora.htm
Deaths
2004
Marijuana 13
https://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/ME2004/StateMetroProfiles/DetroitWarren.htm
Deaths
2003 2004
Marijuana 37 46
https://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/ME2004/StateMetroProfiles/HoustonBaytown.htm
Deaths
2003 2004
Marijuana 15 4
https://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/ME2004/StateMetroProfiles/Indianapolis.htm
Deaths
2003 2004
Marijuana 14 14
OK... I'm done with this. If I keep this up, I'll be here all day. There's about 20 more metro area reports out there with these stats.
Again, it seems that these pro-legalization claims are not as accurate as some would like to believe.
-
It seems we're splitting hairs. What's this?
https://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/ME2004/StateMetroProfiles/BostonCambridge.htmhttps://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/ME2004/StateMetroProfiles/BuffaloCheektowaga.htmhttps://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/ME2004/StateMetroProfiles/ChicagoNaperville.htmhttps://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/ME2004/StateMetroProfiles/ClevelandElyria.htmhttps://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/ME2004/StateMetroProfiles/DenverAurora.htmhttps://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/ME2004/StateMetroProfiles/DetroitWarren.htmhttps://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/ME2004/StateMetroProfiles/HoustonBaytown.htmhttps://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/ME2004/StateMetroProfiles/Indianapolis.htm
OK... I'm done with this. If I keep this up, I'll be here all day. There's about 20 more metro area reports out there with these stats.
Again, it seems that these pro-legalization claims are not as accurate as some would like to believe.
Again with your twisted false data.
You left out a column on all of those. The most important one. SINGLE DRUG DEATHS.
Zero for marijuana for every one of those. Each of those deaths in the part of the chart you showed were where marijuana was present ALONG WITH other substances (most commonly alcohol).
-
There you go again, taking my quotes out of context when you're backed into a corner...
Why not use the whole quote? I proclaimed that more kids are smoking marijuana now that is illegal and being sold through 15 year olds growing it in their bedrooms, than if it were legal, regulated, and purchased at the package store. No where did I say that MORE kids are smoking pot than drinking alcohol.
The "whole quote" was irrelevant. If that were true, why didn't you ever refute my response...
At 16, I found it much easier to get my hands on a bottle of liquor or a 12-pack from Pushpop at the local Kwiki-Mart. In fact, I purchased my first 12-pack at the ripe old age of 14. Kids have been swiping bottles from mom and dad's liquor cabinets for years. It's easy, even today. Do you really think that kids have experimented or used more marijuana than alcohol?
And, why did you respond this way without correcting my "mistaken" perception of your statement?
Yes. Things have changed since you grew up. I don't know if you're aware but you have to be 21 to buy alcohol now. Penalties for contributing to minors are serious. For high school kids it is FAR easier to find a 16 year old that grows pot in his room to sell it to you than it is to get someone to go the the store to pick up a 6 pack for you.
You just answered "Yes". Now, you're trying to say that's not what you meant??? :rofl:
Followed by...
Yes, the legal age was 21 when I was 16 too. So what? We still got our hands on it. Where's the study that shows more kids experiment with MJ than alcohol? You made the statement. Let's see some facts.
You finally came back with that article after additional prodding, but now, you're packpeddling on your original claim. Now, come on... Seriously? I think we all know who is "backed into a corner". :thumbsup:
-
Again with your twisted false data.
You left out a column on all of those. The most important one. SINGLE DRUG DEATHS.
Zero for marijuana for every one of those. Each of those deaths in the part of the chart you showed were where marijuana was present ALONG WITH other substances (most commonly alcohol).
Again... Splitting hairs... It's interesting to note that alcohol related deaths for your "SINGLE DRUG DEATHS" (the most important one) are also zero in most of those reports, by the way, for your information, just to point that out. :rofl:
We know that you can't easily overdose on cannabis, but is that the only argument here? You're the one trying to narrow this down to unreasonable situations and circumstances. Tell me something. Of the "handful" of times that you've smoked weed, what were you drinking? Was it cranberry juice or prune juice?
In the post-mortem, they'd likely find traces of multiple drugs; I'm guessing... :blink:
-
Is WebMD accurate enough for you?
AUChizad, that is an interesting article; other than this particular article itself, the writer (who is a career medical journalist) has taken a publicly apolitical view of legalization of marijuana. I think that gives him credibility to write from an objective perspective on the subject of legalization. I think he's fairly clear and competent and I might also agree with the assertion claimed but, unfortunately, there's still contrary evidence about mortality when using cannabis (see what GarMan posted above).
And, even the writer states (quoting from his source) that longer term studies are non-existent or nebulous at best. Marijuana users shouldn't cancel their life insurance policies just yet. Sidney warns that longer-term data may indeed show that marijuana smoking eventually raises the risk of premature death. And if marijuana is legalized, long-term use may become more common. If this is the case, there certainly will be more long-term effects of marijuana use.
Unlike the writer himself, the doctor (Stephen Sidney, MD) that he cites for a major reference, however, has taken a very public stance for legalization but strictly for medicinal use only; not recreational use. Here's a link to what ProCon.com says about him: http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/viewsource.asp?ID=714 Never-the-less he's clearly subjective in his view and I'd expect that subjectivity to be reflected in anything he says.
I think that the jury is still out on whether or not marijuana use causes any deaths (again in the daylight of what GarMan posted above). Even the European source I quoted yesterday admits that mortality rates in marijuana users are greater than non-users in Portugal.
How about this for a thought?
Using death rates as an argument pro or con on legalization of cannabis is somewhat academic. It could be argued that using cannabis only affects the user. But given that the long-term effects data is scientifically (and medically) disputed perhaps this isn't a good basis for either side because if there are long-term health effects (and it is legalized) there will be a cost associated with the health-care for those individuals afflicted.
Who is going to pay for that? There's no big cannabis company to milk for money (like FedGov did to the Big Tobacco companies in the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement for health care costs associated with tobacco use). So that leaves FedGov (and you and me).
That is a big 'if' there but, anyway, I already pay enough taxes.
Has the Libertarian Party made any detailed policy platform on this issue? I've really been looking into it on their main website but they have no plan stated other than broad legalization/decriminalization which, in my opinion, is a dangerous solution to the problem of drugs in America and is akin to doing brain surgery with a claw hammer.
Again, I think that Ogre pointed in the right direction with the Portuguese solution.
-
Again... Splitting hairs... It's interesting to note that alcohol related deaths for your "SINGLE DRUG DEATHS" (the most important one) are also zero in most of those reports, by the way, for your information, just to point that out. :rofl:
We know that you can't easily overdose on cannabis, but is that the only argument here? You're the one trying to narrow this down to unreasonable situations and circumstances. Tell me something. Of the "handful" of times that you've smoked weed, what were you drinking? Was it cranberry juice or prune juice?
In the post-mortem, they'd likely find traces of multiple drugs; I'm guessing... :blink:
Splitting hairs, my ass. You're acting as if marijuana caused these deaths yet they've NEVER been solely responsible for a death. Only when mixed with substances that HAVE been known to cause deaths ALONE. If you have any kind of ability to apply logic, what does that tell you? And yes, I misspoke earlier when I said "usually alcohol" is what is mixed with marijuana in those deaths. It's usually cocaine. However, while alcohol is zero in many of those links, it IS present in several as well. Marijuana is ZERO for every one.
-
Splitting hairs, my ass. You're acting as if marijuana caused these deaths yet they've NEVER been solely responsible for a death. Only when mixed with substances that HAVE been known to cause deaths ALONE.
You know....mixed with substances like jeeps or ditches.
-
You know....mixed with substances like jeeps or ditches.
You're hung up on the semantics of marijuana directly causing death. To answer your earlier question, to me directly means there was a medical link between marijuana and a person's death.
Yes, I'm sure from time to time people get in accidents that result in death after they've smoked pot. As stated earlier, this number is NOTHING compared to those that drank before getting behind the wheel, and even more minute when we're talking isolated marijuana use vs. isolated alcohol use.
-
Splitting hairs, my ass. You're acting as if marijuana caused these deaths yet they've NEVER been solely responsible for a death. Only when mixed with substances that HAVE been known to cause deaths ALONE. If you have any kind of ability to apply logic, what does that tell you? And yes, I misspoke earlier when I said "usually alcohol" is what is mixed with marijuana in those deaths. It's usually cocaine. However, while alcohol is zero in many of those links, it IS present in several as well. Marijuana is ZERO for every one.
I'm hypothesizing here but I wonder how many of those folk who died from mixing cannabis with other substances started their drug use with just cannabis alone (and/or alcohol and/or cocaine and/or cigarettes)? Sounds like there's some credible witness to the Gateway Drug theory (to use a friendlier word).
-
I'm hypothesizing here but I wonder how many of those folk who died from mixing cannabis with other substances started their drug use with just cannabis alone (and/or alcohol and/or cocaine and/or cigarettes)? Sounds like there's some credible witness to the Gateway Drug theory (to use a friendlier word).
I wonder how many of them also ate pork? I wonder how many watched The Price Is Right? I wonder how many had a boating license?
Also, this would support the idea that alcohol is more of a gateway drug if anything as its combined death:single drug death ratio is far larger (in other words more people drink when they do other drugs).
-
Yes, I'm sure from time to time people get in accidents that result in death after they've smoked pot.
I'm not hung up on anything. Once again, it was your choice of language, not mine. I am only calling you to task on that point. Marijuana has been the cause of deaths.
-
You're hung up on the semantics of marijuana directly causing death. To answer your earlier question, to me directly means there was a medical link between marijuana and a person's death.
Yes, I'm sure from time to time people get in accidents that result in death after they've smoked pot. As stated earlier, this number is NOTHING compared to those that drank before getting behind the wheel, and even more minute when we're talking isolated marijuana use vs. isolated alcohol use.
I like that comparative rationale; I guess you can't stop people from driving drunk and, occasionally, killing themselves or others as a result of their irresponsible behavior so why bother trying to stop them from getting high and potentially driving under that influence too (or doing something else equally self-destructive or destructive of others)?
Yes, it should be legalized without constraints immediately! Let's add it to the mix, you can't keep people from using drugs anyway. (sarcasm)
Madness. Utter madness.
-
Also, this would support the idea that alcohol is more of a gateway drug if anything as its combined death:single drug death ratio is far larger (in other words more people drink when they do other drugs).
I think that I said about 12,000 posts ago that I think that alcohol is also a gateway drug.
-
I like that comparative rationale; I guess you can't stop people from driving drunk and, occasionally, killing themselves or others as a result of their irresponsible behavior so why bother trying to stop them from getting high and potentially driving under that influence too (or doing something else equally self-destructive or destructive of others)?
Yes, it should be legalized without constraints immediately! Let's add it to the mix, you can't keep people from using drugs anyway. (sarcasm)
Madness. Utter madness.
I have never said anything about legalizing "without constraints".
Driving high would be treated the same way you would driving drunk. I have provided statistics showing though that driving high is much less of a problem than driving drunk.
So you make the substance illegal because people can drive high? People can (and far more often do) drive drunk, but you're not suggesting that alcohol should be outright criminalized? Why can you see the difference between responsible drinking and a drunk driver, but not responsible marijuana use versus the far less common "high driver"?
-
I wonder how many of them also ate pork? I wonder how many watched The Price Is Right? I wonder how many had a boating license?
Also, this would support the idea that alcohol is more of a gateway drug if anything as its combined death:single drug death ratio is far larger (in other words more people drink when they do other drugs).
Witty retort to an admitted hypothesis.
As I stated earlier (which you obviously didn't read) I think that arguing this topic using 'death rates' is absolutely useless since there are no indisputable absolutes in this reasoning.
-
I think that I said about 12,000 posts ago that I think that alcohol is also a gateway drug.
So by your logic:
Marijuana is a gateway drug, therefore it should be illegal.
Alcohol is also a gateway drug, likely moreso than marijuana, therefore it should remain legal.
:blink:
-
So by your logic:
Marijuana is a gateway drug, therefore it should be illegal.
Alcohol is also a gateway drug, likely moreso than marijuana, therefore it should remain legal.
:blink:
I think we should outlaw ditches and jeeps.
-
I have never said anything about legalizing "without constraints".
Driving high would be treated the same way you would driving drunk. I have provided statistics showing though that driving high is much less of a problem than driving drunk.
So you make the substance illegal because people can drive high? People can (and far more often do) drive drunk, but you're not suggesting that alcohol should be outright criminalized? Why can you see the difference between responsible drinking and a drunk driver, but not responsible marijuana use versus the far less common "high driver"?
So you would have constraints and rules. Interesting. That seems to differ from the Libertarians; I can't seem to find anything on their website about a plan (like Portugal, for example) to implement while legalizing/decriminalizing drugs (including cannabis).
Driving high (while arguably not as 'bad' as driving drunk) would cause a cumulative worsening of the problem of DUI. Comparing it to DUI of alcohol is being irrational.
This is not my logic; this is the logic of the Libertarians. You can't stop it from happening so just legalize it; let's make an already bad problem worse. With the current level of irresponsible behavior people have with abusing alcohol I think adding drugs to the mix will be even more dangerous (and deadly) than what we have now. The fact of the matter is it is illegal; until The ONE with his congressional friends changes the law.
So by your logic:
Marijuana is a gateway drug, therefore it should be illegal.
Alcohol is also a gateway drug, likely moreso than marijuana, therefore it should remain legal.
That is not my logic; that is the logic of FedGov; it is what it is. Defending that wisdom is to go where angels fear to tread.
-
So you would have constraints and rules. Interesting. That seems to differ from the Libertarians; I can't seem to find anything on their website about a plan (like Portugal, for example) to implement while legalizing/decriminalizing drugs (including cannabis).
The same restrictions and constraints that are present with alcohol.
i.e. you have to be a certain age to obtain it, you can't drive under its influence, etc.
-
Splitting hairs, my ass. You're acting as if marijuana caused these deaths yet they've NEVER been solely responsible for a death.
The stats are the stats... As I said before, it's interesting to note that alcohol related deaths for your "SINGLE DRUG DEATHS" (the most important one) are also zero in most of those reports, by the way, for your information, just to point that out. :clap:
Only when mixed with substances that HAVE been known to cause deaths ALONE. If you have any kind of ability to apply logic, what does that tell you?
That's right. Marijuana is sooooo safe. It doesn't cloud judgement or dull your senses. I think it tells me that even when presented with actual facts, you're going to deny it or constrain the details to fit your agenda, no matter what. It wasn't the pot that killed him. It was the windshield and/or the tree that hit his head during the accident.
And yes, I misspoke earlier when I said "usually alcohol" is what is mixed with marijuana in those deaths. It's usually cocaine. However, while alcohol is zero in many of those links, it IS present in several as well. Marijuana is ZERO for every one.
Oh... You m-i-s-s-p-o-k-e earlier. I see. Now, it's cocaine. Right...
-
The same restrictions and constraints that are present with alcohol.
i.e. you have to be a certain age to obtain it, you can't drive under its influence, etc.
Honestly, I think this is a really bad idea with the cumulative effect of adding drugs (or just cannabis) to alcohol coupled to an already ignorant mass of sheeple; but, if you can load the Congress with Libertarians and get a Libertarian elected to the White House then more power to you in getting the laws changed. You might be in luck with The ONE in office now.
I think if it is ever legalized, the way things are going now we'll have a plan so restrictive and ruled and taxed that it will be more trouble than it's worth to use the stuff. Maybe you don't think so.
I really don't think we're ever going to see eye-to-eye on this issue.
-
The stats are the stats... As I said before, it's interesting to note that alcohol related deaths for your "SINGLE DRUG DEATHS" (the most important one) are also zero in most of those reports, by the way, for your information, just to point that out. :clap:
THIS is splitting hairs. Congratulations, alcohol is less dangerous than heroine and cocaine. Duh shit. It's still MORE dangerous than marijuana. It sill can cause death by itself, where marijuana cannot.
That's right. Marijuana is sooooo safe. It doesn't cloud judgement or dull your senses. I think it tells me that even when presented with actual facts, you're going to deny it or constrain the details to fit your agenda, no matter what. It wasn't the pot that killed him. It was the windshield and/or the tree that hit his head during the accident.
I knew you'd have a problem with that exercise in logic. As I've pointed out time and time again, if we're talking driving under the influence, alcohol is FAR more often the cause of the accident, and marijuana use by itself is almost nonexistant in these cases. And how can anything you've just said NOT be applied to alcohol (more commonly, at that)?
And what the hell actual facts am I ignoring? You, sir, are the guilty party there, as you obviously still don't grasp these simple truths presented in data I've displayed as well as the data you yourself attempted to use (by manipulating) to state your case.
Oh... You m-i-s-s-p-o-k-e earlier. I see. Now, it's cocaine. Right...
I'm the one that corrected myself there, because I knew any chink in my statements would be inflated to become the focus of the argument. I said marijuana is mixed with other drugs when it causes death and then parenthetically said (usually alcohol). This was incorrect when we're talking medical overdoses. Your data does not contradict my previous statement or my correction. It does not give direct links of which combination of drugs are used. I am by my own accord saying that what I had said earlier was probably not true, nor what I meant to say to begin with. Take that and run with it if you must.
-
THIS is splitting hairs. Congratulations, alcohol is less dangerous than heroine and cocaine. Duh shit.
How did you arrive at that from what I posted? Care to 'splain that one? Oh nevermind...
It's still MORE dangerous than marijuana. It sill can cause death by itself, where marijuana cannot.
Oh, that makes MJ safer... I see. So, when you lock yourself in a plastic bubble and smoke weed, you're invincible, but throw anything else into the mix, it's NEVER pot's fault if you end up dead. It's always the other stuff whether it be a car, an HIV infected hooker, a knife, a pond, alcohol, cocaine or whatever...
I knew you'd have a problem with that exercise in logic. As I've pointed out time and time again, if we're talking driving under the influence, alcohol is FAR more often the cause of the accident, and marijuana use by itself is almost nonexistant in these cases. And how can anything you've just said NOT be applied to alcohol (more commonly, at that)?
I cannot disagree, but to stretch and say that pot couldn't be just as dangerous if not more when legalized under these circumstances is a ridiculous stretch with nothing to support it. Further complicating matters, you don't typically find recreational pot users doing it out in the open or driving to the next party as pot is currently illegal. Even if you had accurate cannabis consumption numbers, I don't think that you could come to any reasonable conclusion. I wonder how many DUIs would be issued for those under the influence of pot if it were to be legalized? I wonder how many deaths would result when combining pot use with other activities, legal and otherwise? You're suggesting fewer would be the result of direct/alone pot use. I'm saying bullshit. It's all half-assed speculation at best, and I would argue that you're just trying to stretch and confine this discussion to only suit your agenda. If you locked me or anyone else in a plastic bubble with a supply of alcohol, we'd likely pass out long before anyone died, so playing your little game is meaningless in the real world.
And what the hell actual facts am I ignoring? You, sir, are the guilty party there, as you obviously still don't grasp these simple truths presented in data I've displayed as well as the data you yourself attempted to use (and failed) to state your case.
Stretching, backpeddling and redefining words to suit your agenda doesn't work in the real world. That is all. :clap:
I particularly like the way you tried to wiggle out of that claim about teen MJ use by trying to confine your "claim" after the facts were presented to "availability" even though we were clearly talking about physical consumption. Nice try... :rofl:
By the way, I think I could argue and agree that cannabis is relatively safe with enough twisting, contortion and constraining of the definitions and conditions around its use. I just know that it's silly.
I'm the one that corrected myself there, because I knew any chink in my statements would be inflated to become the focus of the argument. I said marijuana is mixed with other drugs when it causes death and then parenthetically said (usually alcohol). This was incorrect when we're talking medical overdoses. Your data does not contradict my previous statement or my correction. It does not give direct links of which combination of drugs are used. I am by my own accord saying that what I had said earlier was probably not true, nor what I meant to say to begin with. Take that and run with it if you must.
Blame cocaine... That'll work! :rofl:
-
BUMP :rofl:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19980923/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19980923/)
Pot may hike risk of psychosis, research finds
Even limited use could up chance of serious mental illness by 40 percent
updated 6:59 p.m. ET, Thurs., July 26, 2007
LONDON - Using marijuana seems to increase the chance of becoming psychotic, researchers report in an analysis of past research that reignites the issue of whether pot is dangerous.
The new review suggests that even infrequent use could raise the small but real risk of this serious mental illness by 40 percent.
Doctors have long suspected a connection and say the latest findings underline the need to highlight marijuana’s long-term risks. The research, paid for by the British Health Department, is being published Friday in the medical journal The Lancet.
-
BUMP #2 :rofl:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6732005.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6732005.stm)
Cannabis hospital admissions rise
Mental health hospital admissions in England due to cannabis have risen by 85% under Labour, figures show.
In 1996-7, there were 510 admissions, rising to 946 in 2005-6, data obtained by shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley revealed.
Over the last five years alone there was a 65% rise, with experts saying the figures were "the tip of the iceberg".
The government said it had been clear on cannabis - it was illegal and should not be used.
Cannabis is the most widely used illegal drug in the country with over 2m regular users.
The figures obtained from Health Minister Rosie Winterton in a written House of Commons answer are for patients admitted to hospital in England because of a mental or behavioural disorder due to the use of cannabis....
Pot is safe... :clap:
-
BUMP #2 :rofl:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6732005.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6732005.stm)
Pot is safe... :clap:
England ought to implement the Portuguese drug/cannabis plan.
-
In regards to Bump #1 and #2
Can't argue with it, especially since pot can cause extreme bouts of paranoia, even with a first time user. However, it must be repeated, long term use that could cause psychosis...but you have to factor in other causes of psychosis, such as stress, diet, and simple genetic makeup of one's psyche. Recreational use, though? Nah...you ain't goin' psycho over that, man.
-
BUMP #2 :rofl:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6732005.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6732005.stm)
Pot is safe... :clap:
I would say that number is staistically insignificant any way you look at it when you are looking at a nation of millions. How many thousands were admitted for domestic violence? Should they outlaw marriage?
How about car accidents? Or say lung cancer from ciggies and cigars?
I trust doctors quoted in government sanctioned studies about as much as I now trust barry obama.
Once again, extremely weak sauce.
-
This thread is fun to read five years later.
-
I wish GarMan was still around so we could point & laugh at this.
I think a lot of people agree that MJ legalization wouldn't improve the economy. You don't have to be a genius for that one. Although, it might stump some folks in between bong hits...
Well cock-gobbler, I just don't think it would be that significant. I hear this argument, but what are we really talking about? The only economic boost would come from the enterprises brought about by the legalization, and anything the government gets would just fund more healthcare and future entitlement programs for deadbeats and Ne'er-do-wells as identified by the latest polling data. It certainly wouldn't be an economic boom or anything like Carlos Santana suggested last week. (Another fuggin' musician... good one... but just another burnout musician...) Let's look at this from a fact based perspective. How big do we think the black-market/underground industry is? How big do you think it would be once it becomes legal? Do we allow promotion of it? What happens to farming in America? Do we allow internal production, or do we import? What are we really going to do?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/10/colorado-marijuana-tax-revenue_n_4936223.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/10/colorado-marijuana-tax-revenue_n_4936223.html)
Colorado Recreational Weed Sales Top $14 Million In First Month
Posted: 03/10/2014 6:03 pm EDT Updated: 03/11/2014 11:59 am EDT
During the first month of recreational marijuana sales, Colorado's licensed dispensaries generated a total of more than $14 million, putting about $2 million of tax revenue into state coffers in the process.
The state Department of Revenue released the figures on Monday, which showed how much Colorado has taken in from both medical and recreational marijuana taxes and fees.
The medical marijuana sales for January generated an additional $900,000 in sales tax, for a total tax revenue of $2.9 million for both sides of the state's marijuana dispensary market. Including fees, the figure jumps to $3.5 million.
"The first month of sales for recreational marijuana fell in line with expectations," Barbara Brohl, executive director of the department, said in a statement. "We expect clear revenue patterns will emerge by April and plan to incorporate this data into future forecasts."
The figures represent the tax returns from 59 businesses around Colorado, according to the department.
The recreational marijuana tax numbers come from two levies that state voters approved last November -- a 10 percent special sales tax and a 15 percent excise tax.
Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) recently announced that he expects that the combined sales from both legal medical and recreational marijuana in the state will reach nearly $1 billion in the next fiscal year -- about $600 million of that is projected to come from just recreational sales. The state stands to collect at least $134 million in taxes and fees.
The first week of sales was robust in the state. With only 37 dispensaries open at the time, they collectively brought in roughly $5 million in total sales.
Although the initial crush of retail pot sales has tapered off since January, sales and tax figures are expected to remain steady with more than 150 recreational marijuana dispensaries now licensed, and more added to that list every month.
Though the first $40 million in tax revenue from the industry is flagged for school construction, Hickenlooper has proposed that the state use additional revenue to fund a statewide media campaign to address substance abuse treatment and highlight the risks associated with drug use.
-
Mind fuck -
While you were posting in this thread, you had no idea what kind of tenure Coach Gene Chizik would have, and Cam Newton was just some kid that stole a laptop before leaving Florida.
-
I wish GarMan was still around so we could point & laugh at this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/10/colorado-marijuana-tax-revenue_n_4936223.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/10/colorado-marijuana-tax-revenue_n_4936223.html)
Numbers must confuse you too. A million bucks must seem like a lot of money when compared to the financial influence of a janitor or school teacher, but the exaggerations by the pro-pot crowd are fantasies. Now, let's talk about insignificance. A state with an annual budget of over $30 billion receives a whopping $2 million in taxes on recreational marijuana sales... But hey, let's take their $3.5 million stretch by including medical sales and other related fees. Now, compare it to their $30 billion budget, and it's still insignificant. We're talking about 1-1.5%. Yeah... I'm pointing and laughing...
:haha:
And, remember your virtually harmless claim...
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25475533/denver-coroner-man-fell-death-after-eating-marijuana (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25475533/denver-coroner-man-fell-death-after-eating-marijuana)
Denver coroner: Man fell to death after eating marijuana cookies
By John Ingold
The Denver Post
POSTED: 04/02/2014 09:20:26 AM MDT
A college student visiting Denver jumped to his death from a hotel balcony after eating marijuana-infused cookies, according to a coroner's report that marks the first time authorities have publicly linked a death to marijuana since legal sales of recreational cannabis began in Colorado...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-shot-death-husband-ate-pot-edibles-report-article-1.1758667 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-shot-death-husband-ate-pot-edibles-report-article-1.1758667)
Denver mom shot to death after husband allegedly consumed marijuana edibles, began hallucinating: report
Kristine A. Kirk was on the line with a 911 dispatcher for nearly 15 minutes when she was shot in the head late Monday night, NBC reported. The 44-year-old mother of three had reportedly told police that her husband was 'talking about the end of the world.’
BY NINA GOLGOWSKI
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Published: Wednesday, April 16, 2014, 4:35 PM Updated: Thursday, April 17, 2014, 9:16 AM
A Denver woman was allegedly shot to death by her own husband while on the phone with police after she reportedly said he consumed marijuana edibles and began hallucinating...
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/marijuana-linked-to-heart-problems-1.7836745 (http://www.newsday.com/news/health/marijuana-linked-to-heart-problems-1.7836745)
Marijuana linked to heart problems
Originally published: April 26, 2014 9:07 PM
Updated: April 26, 2014 9:48 PM
By DELTHIA RICKS
Proponents of legalizing marijuana have long stood by claims of the plant's overall safety, but new research raises questions about pot's impact on the cardiovascular system and brain.
Writing this past week in the Journal of the American Heart Association, medical scientists in France concluded that recreational marijuana use may result in cardiovascular-related complications, and possibly even death, among young and middle-aged adults...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/15/marijuana-brain-changes/7749309/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/15/marijuana-brain-changes/7749309/)
Casual marijuana use linked to brain changes
Karen Weintraub, Special for USA TODAY 6:46 p.m. EDT April 15, 2014
A new study links casual marijuana use with significant changes to parts of the brain.
Using marijuana a few times a week is enough to physically alter critical brain structures, according to a new study published Tuesday in The Journal of Neuroscience.
"Just casual use appears to create changes in the brain in areas you don't want to change," said Hans Breiter, a psychiatrist and mathematician at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, who led the new study.
There is actually very little research on the potential benefits and downsides of casual marijuana smoking — fewer than four times a week on average.
In his study, done in collaboration with researchers at Harvard University, scientists looked at the brains of 20 relatively light marijuana users and 20 people who did not use it at all. All 40 were college students in the Boston area...
And, if Darwin's culling of the herd wasn't enough, we have more.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25648201/explosion-small-fire-at-jeffco-townhome (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25648201/explosion-small-fire-at-jeffco-townhome)
Two children caught in marijuana oil explosion
By Tom McGhee
The Denver Post
POSTED: 04/27/2014 08:42:14 AM MDT12 COMMENTS| UPDATED: ABOUT 5 HOURS AGO
Two small children were in a Jefferson County townhouse that exploded while their parents were making a marijuana concentrate, Sheriff's spokesman Mark Techmeyer said Sunday.
Neither child, a three-year-old and an eight-month-old, nor their mother, were hurt in the explosion Saturday night or the fire it created...
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25622569/small-explosion-at-sw-denver-grow-house (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25622569/small-explosion-at-sw-denver-grow-house)
Small explosion at marijuana grow house in SW Denver; 3 injured
By Kate Gibbons
The Denver Post
POSTED: 04/23/2014 01:41:09 PM MDT40 COMMENTS| UPDATED: 4 DAYS AGO
Three people were injured Wednesday when a small explosion erupted at a marijuana growing operation in southwest Denver...
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/04/09/fire-burns-northern-colorado-pot-growing-operation/ (http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/04/09/fire-burns-northern-colorado-pot-growing-operation/)
Fire Burns Northern Colorado Pot-Growing Operation
April 9, 2013 5:17 PM
FORT COLLINS, Colo. (AP) – Sheriff’s officials say a fire has destroyed about 60 marijuana plants in a garage being used to grow pot in Larimer County...
http://adage.com/article/media/colorado-s-drive-high-a-dui-poke-fun-pot-smokers/292027/ (http://adage.com/article/media/colorado-s-drive-high-a-dui-poke-fun-pot-smokers/292027/)
Watch the Pot: 'Drive High, Get a DUI' Ads Chide Newly Legal Weed Smokers
Colorado Rolls Out PSAs to Keep Stoners in the Passenger Seat
By Michael Sebastian. Published on March 06, 2014.
I wonder how much the state has had to spend on refining DUI laws, training law enforcement and producing these PSAs and other related efforts.
-
I wonder how much the state has had to spend on refining DUI laws, training law enforcement and producing these PSAs and other related efforts.
They shouldn't have had to spend any money refining DUI laws or training law enforcement. To my knowledge, most states have a "catch all" clause for DUIs not involving alcohol. They even allow for the officer to arrest a person for DUI merely based on indicators of impairment, rather than having to bring in a new blood test and train law enforcement.
And you always have to consider that DUIs are money makers for courts. So while there are costs involved with arrests and prosecution, there is also income.
-
Bump.
Driving high (while arguably not as 'bad' as driving drunk) would cause a cumulative worsening of the problem of DUI. Comparing it to DUI of alcohol is being irrational.
I wonder how much the state has had to spend on refining DUI laws, training law enforcement and producing these PSAs and other related efforts.
LOL.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/08/05/since-marijuana-legalization-highway-fatalities-in-colorado-are-at-near-historic-lows/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/08/05/since-marijuana-legalization-highway-fatalities-in-colorado-are-at-near-historic-lows/)
Since marijuana legalization, highway fatalities in Colorado are at near-historic lows
By Radley Balko August 5 at 11:29 AM
Since Colorado voters legalized pot in 2012, prohibition supporters have warned that recreational marijuana will lead to a scourge of “drugged divers†on the state’s roads. They often point out that when the state legalized medical marijuana in 2001, there was a surge in drivers found to have smoked pot. They also point to studies showing that in other states that have legalized pot for medical purposes, we’ve seen an increase in the number of drivers testing positive for the drug who were involved in fatal car accidents. The anti-pot group SAM recently pointed out that even before the first legal pot store opened in Washington state, the number of drivers in that state testing positive for pot jumped by a third.
The problem with these criticisms is that we can test only for the presence of marijuana metabolites, not for inebriation. Metabolites can linger in the body for days after the drug’s effects wear off — sometimes even for weeks. Because we all metabolize drugs differently (and at different times and under different conditions), all that a positive test tells us is that the driver has smoked pot at some point in the past few days or weeks.
It makes sense that loosening restrictions on pot would result in a higher percentage of drivers involved in fatal traffic accidents having smoked the drug at some point over the past few days or weeks. You’d also expect to find that a higher percentage of churchgoers, good Samaritans and soup kitchen volunteers would have pot in their system. You’d expect a similar result among any large sampling of people. This doesn’t necessarily mean that marijuana caused or was even a contributing factor to accidents, traffic violations or fatalities.
This isn’t an argument that pot wasn’t a factor in at least some of those accidents, either. But that’s precisely the point. A post-accident test for marijuana metabolites doesn’t tell us much at all about whether pot contributed to the accident.
Since the new Colorado law took effect in January, the “drugged driver†panic has only intensified. I’ve already written about one dubious example, in which the Colorado Highway Patrol and some local and national media perpetuated a story that a driver was high on pot when he slammed into a couple of police cars parked on an interstate exit ramp. While the driver did have some pot in his system, his blood-alcohol level was off the charts and was far more likely the cause of the accident. In my colleague Marc Fisher’s recent dispatch from Colorado, law enforcement officials there and in bordering states warned that they’re seeing more drugged drivers. Congress recently held hearings on the matter, complete with dire predictions such as “We are going to have a lot more people stoned on the highway and there will be consequences,†from Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.). Some have called for a zero tolerance policy — if you’re driving with any trace of pot in your system, you’re guilty of a DWI. That would effectively ban anyone who smokes pot from driving for up to a couple of weeks after their last joint, including people who legitimately use the drug for medical reasons.
It seems to me that the best way to gauge the effect legalization has had on the roadways is to look at what has happened on the roads since legalization took effect. Here’s a month-by-month comparison of highway fatalities in Colorado through the first seven months of this year and last year. For a more thorough comparison, I’ve also included the highest fatality figures for each month since 2002, the lowest for each month since 2002 and the average for each month since 2002.
(http://img.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2014/08/CoTrafficDeaths.jpg)
Raw data from the Colorado Dept. of Transportation
As you can see, roadway fatalities this year are down from last year, and down from the 13-year average. Of the seven months so far this year, five months saw a lower fatality figure this year than last, two months saw a slightly higher figure this year, and in one month the two figures were equal. If we add up the total fatalities from January through July, it looks like this:
(http://img.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2014/08/COTotalDeaths.jpg)
Raw data from the Colorado Dept. of Transportation
Here, the “high†bar (pardon the pun) is what you get when you add the worst January since 2002 to the worst February, to the worst March, and so on. The “low†bar is the sum total of the safest January, February, etc., since 2002. What’s notable here is that the totals so far in 2014 are closer to the safest composite year since 2002 than to the average year since 2002. I should also add here that these are total fatalities. If we were to calculate these figures as a rate — say, miles driven per fatality — the drop would be starker, both for this year and since Colorado legalized medical marijuana in 2001. While the number of miles Americans drive annually has leveled off nationally since the mid-2000s, the number of total miles traveled continues to go up in Colorado. If we were to measure by rate, then, the state would be at lows unseen in decades.
The figures are similar in states that have legalized medical marijuana. While some studies have shown that the number of drivers involved in fatal collisions who test positive for marijuana has steadily increased as pot has become more available, other studies have shown that overall traffic fatalities in those states have dropped. Again, because the pot tests only measure for recent pot use, not inebriation, there’s nothing inconsistent about those results.
Of course, the continuing drop in roadway fatalities, in Colorado and elsewhere, is due to a variety of factors, such as better-built cars and trucks, improved safety features and better road engineering. These figures in and of themselves only indicate that the roads are getting safer; they don’t suggest that pot had anything to do with it. We’re also only seven months in. Maybe these figures will change. Finally, it’s also possible that if it weren’t for legal pot, the 2014 figures would be even lower. There’s no real way to know that. We can only look at the data available. But you can bet that if fatalities were up this year, prohibition supporters would be blaming it on legal marijuana. (Interestingly, though road fatalities have generally been falling in Colorado for a long time, 2013 actually saw a slight increase from 2012. So fatalities are down the year after legalization, after having gone up the year before.)
That said, some researchers have gone so far as to suggest that better access to pot is making the roads safer, at least marginally. The theory is that people are substituting pot for alcohol, and pot causes less driver impairment than booze. I’d need to see more studies before I’d be ready to endorse that theory. For example, there’s also some research contradicting the theory that drinkers are ready to substitute pot for alcohol.
But the data are far more supportive of that than of the claims that stoned drivers are menacing Colorado’s roadways.
-
Have any data from Washington?
-
Have any data from Washington?
Do you?
-
Do you?
No. I was asking. I figured someone who beats the benefits of pot drum as much as you do would have that.
I personally like looking at multiple sets of data whether it supports what I think or not. That's how new learning takes place, but since you seem to feel threatened by my asking we can just make the blanket statement that pot makes it safer to drive.
Correlation is not causation, but since Washington is the only other state who has it legalized I thought that would be a good contrast and compare item. I mean surely someone who is bringing up quotes from 5 years ago would like to look deeply at the subject matter?
-
No. I was asking. I figured someone who beats the benefits of pot drum as much as you do would have that.
I personally like looking at multiple sets of data whether it supports what I think or not. That's how new learning takes place, but since you seem to feel threatened by my asking we can just make the blanket statement that pot makes it safer to drive.
Correlation is not causation, but since Washington is the only other state who has it legalized I thought that would be a good contrast and compare item. I mean surely someone who is bringing up quotes from 5 years ago would like to look deeply at the subject matter?
Can you anti Pot folks tell me one negative thing it does that Alcohol, Cigarettes or Prescriptions drugs DOESN'T do? We know if you drink hard liquor and drive its a bad thing. We know if you smoke cigarettes and don't stop, youre more than likely gonna die because of it. And a horrible death at that. And how many people have died from Scripts? Seems to be the prefered choice for celebrities to off themselves. Nevermind the side effects they have that they OPENLY admit in their disclaimers.
All 3 things though - legal.
We're going to look back on this one day and see how ridicilous it was that we were even debating it, just like prohibition.
-
Can you anti Pot folks tell me one negative thing it does that Alcohol, Cigarettes or Prescriptions drugs DOESN'T do? We know if you drink hard liquor and drive its a bad thing. We know if you smoke cigarettes and don't stop, youre more than likely gonna die because of it. And a horrible death at that. And how many people have died from Scripts? Seems to be the prefered choice for celebrities to off themselves. Nevermind the side effects they have that they OPENLY admit in their disclaimers.
All 3 things though - legal.
We're going to look back on this one day and see how ridicilous it was that we were even debating it, just like prohibition.
Well understand firstly that I am not anti pot. I think it is a joke that it is illegal. But that was not what was brought up. What was brought up was that the roads are safer in Colorado since pot has been legalized. The numbers are irrefutable. What is refutable is whether or not pot is the cause for that decline? Hence why I asked for data from the other legalized state.
-
Well understand firstly that I am not anti pot. I think it is a joke that it is illegal. But that was not what was brought up. What was brought up was that the roads are safer in Colorado since pot has been legalized. The numbers are irrefutable. What is refutable is whether or not pot is the cause for that decline? Hence why I asked for data from the other legalized state.
understood. Fair enough...
I guess my response should have been more directed at GarMan who I am pretty sure is anti legalization (but controlled) and points out all the negatives of it (alleged anyway) even though the same negatives (and worse) exist for things today that are perfectly legal and accepted. I had no idea that the rule for something being legal was that it had to be perfectly safe. Its a slippery slope to start banning things such as BBQ, McDonalds, Swimming Pools, Diet Coke, Advil, etc.
-
No. I was asking. I figured someone who beats the benefits of pot drum as much as you do would have that.
I personally like looking at multiple sets of data whether it supports what I think or not. That's how new learning takes place, but since you seem to feel threatened by my asking we can just make the blanket statement that pot makes it safer to drive.
Correlation is not causation, but since Washington is the only other state who has it legalized I thought that would be a good contrast and compare item. I mean surely someone who is bringing up quotes from 5 years ago would like to look deeply at the subject matter?
Tweet that mofo down Sani. Tweet his ass.
-
Numbers must confuse you too. A million bucks must seem like a lot of money when compared to the financial influence of a janitor or school teacher, but the exaggerations by the pro-pot crowd are fantasies. Now, let's talk about insignificance. A state with an annual budget of over $30 billion receives a whopping $2 million in taxes on recreational marijuana sales... But hey, let's take their $3.5 million stretch by including medical sales and other related fees. Now, compare it to their $30 billion budget, and it's still insignificant. We're talking about 1-1.5%. Yeah... I'm pointing and laughing...
You leave out the gazillions saved by not arresting, prosecuting, and housing marijuana offenders....
-
You leave out the gazillions saved by not arresting, prosecuting, and housing marijuana offenders....
Gazillions? Pffffft...a drop in the bucket compared to Skwadrillions.
-
Not sure if already posted, because I didn't sift through all the posts, but I LOVE when people bring up the "only losers, lazy, poor people smoke Marjiuana"...all I have to say to that is three names Ted Turner, Steve Jobs & Bill Gates
I also love the "we don't know the long term effects of Marjiuana"...to which I say Marjiuana has been used, in different forms, for THOUSANDS of years, it's a plant that was here before mankind walked the Earth and as long as the big tobacco companies don't get a hold of it, then it won't have around 20 different types of carcinogens added...also, Willie Nelson has been smoking Marijuana for 50+ YEARS.
As for scientific study, our Government owns patents on the Marjiuana plant, patents that include it's medical benefits and our Government also owns the only Marijuana Facility in the Country (Oxford, MS...Ole Miss' campus) in which they've been giving Marjiuana to certain patients since the late 70s-early 80s (namely a guy in Florida with a rare bone cancer, gets 300 pre-rolled Marjiuana joints every 25 days and he's been receiving them since 1982...he's still alive today, 32 years later)
(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-0/10414909_299455383557773_4785544524674642779_n.jpg)
Just saying, legalize it, tax it, educate people (note: not with fucking scare tactics like reefer madness or yellow journalism) & take it out of the hands of the drug dealers...because people just like me have a lot of pain, just to get out of bed due to ruined joints from arthritis &/or gout (btw, THC has 7 different types of anti-inflammatories in it).
#DropsMic
-
Not sure if already posted, because I didn't sift through all the posts, but I LOVE when people bring up the "only losers, lazy, poor people smoke Marjiuana"...all I have to say to that is three names Ted Turner, Steve Jobs & Bill Gates
I also love the "we don't know the long term effects of Marjiuana"...to which I say Marjiuana has been used, in different forms, for THOUSANDS of years, it's a plant that was here before mankind walked the Earth and as long as the big tobacco companies don't get a hold of it, then it won't have around 20 different types of carcinogens added...also, Willie Nelson has been smoking Marijuana for 50+ YEARS.
As for scientific study, our Government owns patents on the Marjiuana plant, patents that include it's medical benefits and our Government also owns the only Marijuana Facility in the Country (Oxford, MS...Ole Miss' campus) in which they've been giving Marjiuana to certain patients since the late 70s-early 80s (namely a guy in Florida with a rare bone cancer, gets 300 pre-rolled Marjiuana joints every 25 days and he's been receiving them since 1982...he's still alive today, 32 years later)
(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-0/10414909_299455383557773_4785544524674642779_n.jpg)
Just saying, legalize it, tax it, educate people (note: not with fucking scare tactics like reefer madness or yellow journalism) & take it out of the hands of the drug dealers...because people just like me have a lot of pain, just to get out of bed due to ruined joints from arthritis &/or gout (btw, THC has 7 different types of anti-inflammatories in it).
#DropsMic
Troof.
No more dangerous than the other three I mentioned. More than likely LESS dangerous. Look at how many people cigarettes, drunk drivers and prescription drugs have killed. Death by pot? You don't hear that often. Besides, like you said it actually has some medicinal properites that could actually help people.
-
From a medical perspective, it does have many uses.
You wanna know one of the real reasons, it cannot be regulated in your back yard.
If its legal and I only want to smoke some every now and then, I can grow my own. And they will never know. Therefore, they cannot tax it.
This would be an awesome option for many Americans who cannot afford medicine, but can grow a plant, dry the leaves, and store it up for themselves.
-
Can you anti Pot folks tell me one negative thing it does that Alcohol, Cigarettes or Prescriptions drugs DOESN'T do? We know if you drink hard liquor and drive its a bad thing. We know if you smoke cigarettes and don't stop, youre more than likely gonna die because of it. And a horrible death at that. And how many people have died from Scripts? Seems to be the prefered choice for celebrities to off themselves. Nevermind the side effects they have that they OPENLY admit in their disclaimers.
All 3 things though - legal.
We're going to look back on this one day and see how ridicilous it was that we were even debating it, just like prohibition.
I've never been drunk enough to hallucinate.
I have been so high that I was concerned that I was so flat that if I stood up I would blow over like a cardboard cutout. I have been so high that I saw words in the air around my 3D television. And I don't have a 3D television.
I could operate a car to a certain extent if I were buzzed. I don't, but I could. I could not operate a vehicle if I were more than just a little high. Don't know how it affects other people, but reality bends for me when I get high. That doesn't happen with booze.
-
I've never been drunk enough to hallucinate.
I have been so high that I was concerned that I was so flat that if I stood up I would blow over like a cardboard cutout. I have been so high that I saw words in the air around my 3D television. And I don't have a 3D television.
I could operate a car to a certain extent if I were buzzed. I don't, but I could. I could not operate a vehicle if I were more than just a little high. Don't know how it affects other people, but reality bends for me when I get high. That doesn't happen with booze.
Wow... where do you get your weed Mr. Cheezle?
-
I've never been drunk enough to hallucinate.
I have been so high that I was concerned that I was so flat that if I stood up I would blow over like a cardboard cutout. I have been so high that I saw words in the air around my 3D television. And I don't have a 3D television.
I could operate a car to a certain extent if I were buzzed. I don't, but I could. I could not operate a vehicle if I were more than just a little high. Don't know how it affects other people, but reality bends for me when I get high. That doesn't happen with booze.
Ive been drunk enough to where I had no business behing behind the wheel of a 2 ton piece of metal going 60 mph. If I had, bad things would have likely happened.
And you know if you got that high and tried to drive, that would be regulated right? Just like drinking. High and can't walk a straight line? Equivelant to a DUI. Thats why we say regulate and tax it just like any other substance.
Also wondering what pot you got a hold of to make you hallucinate that badly.
-
I think I might have the wherewithal not to drive over-baked but l would not be able to make a conscious decision not to drive pickled.
-
I personally like looking at multiple sets of data whether it supports what I think or not. That's how new learning takes place, but since you seem to feel threatened by my asking we can just make the blanket statement that pot makes it safer to drive.
Who's threatened? You derived that from a two word, five letter sentence?
I asked if you had data that conflicted with this data.
If that's the only data out there since legalization, that's the data I'm going to use.
GarMan & Tarheel were positive that legalizing marijuana would cause chaos in the streets and mass graves. They said it would undoubtedly cause more DUIs. Since there are no known cases of direct marijuana related deaths, and I presented that fact, the conversation switched to the "obvious fact" that driving stoned would be out of control and DUI deaths would skyrocket.
That has been proven not only factually inaccurate, but the exact opposite is true. As I said would be the case.
-
I've never been drunk enough to hallucinate.
I have been so high that I was concerned that I was so flat that if I stood up I would blow over like a cardboard cutout. I have been so high that I saw words in the air around my 3D television. And I don't have a 3D television.
I could operate a car to a certain extent if I were buzzed. I don't, but I could. I could not operate a vehicle if I were more than just a little high. Don't know how it affects other people, but reality bends for me when I get high. That doesn't happen with booze.
First of all, that wasn't pot. That wasn't exclusively pot. Someone mixed some shit into your bud before you got it.
There are no hallucinogenic effects of marijuana. There just aren't. Not saying it can't fuck you up royally, but you can't see the shit you claim to have seen purely from a THC high.
So guess what? If it were legal, it would be regulated and you would have nutrition facts on the label and you would know exactly what was going into your weed, the exact strength, etc. so you wouldn't be surprised by what some dealer slipped in.
Also, as GH2001 said, this is completely irrelevant to the discussion as driving high is still illegal and driving AS drunk as you claim to have been high would be unquestionably a bad choice as well.
-
Wow... where do you get your weed Mr. Cheezle?
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kzb1zvv28E1qzp5buo1_400.jpg)
Mister Nice-Guy
-
I've been so high that I spoke Latin. I've been so drunk that I threw my hat down and it went up. As a matter of fact I took me a couple of snorts this morning. I will whip any motherfucker in here right now that has something to say about it. I do not have a problem
-
Who's threatened? You derived that from a two word, five letter sentence?
I asked if you had data that conflicted with this data.
I'm sure that's why it was asked. Because you thought I may have the data on it.
Righhhhhhhhhhhht. :thumsup:
-
I've been so high that I spoke Latin. I've been so drunk that I threw my hat down and it went up. As a matter of fact I took me a couple of snorts this morning. I will whip any motherfucker in here right now that has something to say about it. I do not have a problem
Define "whip".
You may send VV mixed signals. After all, tomorrow is Friday.
-
Define "whip".
You may send VV mixed signals. After all, tomorrow is Friday.
Never mind him. He used be in the Dazz Band!
-
I'm sure that's why it was asked. Because you thought I may have the data on it.
Righhhhhhhhhhhht. :thumsup:
Then why ask?
I don't understand how you think I'm the butthurt one in this situation.
I presented factual, recently released data disproving your hypothesis. You asked if I had data from Washington, as if there is some but I'm just choosing to ignore it. The implication was that there is some data on Washington that contradicts what I presented. I'm saying if that data exists, I'd absolutely like to see it. If not, why are we talking about some nonexistent data in the first place?
-
Then why ask?
I don't understand how you think I'm the butthurt one in this situation.
I presented factual, recently released data disproving your hypothesis. You asked if I had data from Washington, as if there is some but I'm just choosing to ignore it. The implication was that there is some data on Washington that contradicts what I presented. I'm saying if that data exists, I'd absolutely like to see it. If not, why are we talking about some nonexistent data in the first place?
Let's start slow...
First off, not my hypothesis.
Second, I don't know if you are butthurt or not. Only you and your butt can answer that.
Third, the only reason I asked for data from Washington was to see if the data was holding true in the only other legalized state.
Fourth, why would I not ask the person who obviously is more concerned with this issue than almost anyone else on the board? You felt the need to bring up quotes from five years ago so this is obviously a sensitive issue for you (and possibly your butt).
-
Then why ask?
I don't understand how you think I'm the butthurt one in this situation.
I presented factual, recently released data disproving your hypothesis. You asked if I had data from Washington, as if there is some but I'm just choosing to ignore it. The implication was that there is some data on Washington that contradicts what I presented. I'm saying if that data exists, I'd absolutely like to see it. If not, why are we talking about some nonexistent data in the first place?
Um, hang on Mr Conspiracy Theory. You are jumping to some conclusions.
He asked a simple question. "Got any data from Washington?" Not because he already knew the answer, but because he figured someone like you who is all over this pro/con argument would have that info at your fingertips. You had several possible responses, any of which could have been correct.
1. No, you only looked at Colorado data.
2. Yes, you looked at Washington data as well, but it was pretty much the same as Colorado and you were already hinging on TL;DR territory, so you didn't mention it.
3. Yes, you looked at Washington data but chose not to mention it because it did not support the Colorado data, and you wanted to make a statement without silly facts and figures clouding the issue.
Accusing him of some grand plot against you when few others saw it that way is the sign of a delusional mind. You smoking a Sherm?
Sani's point is that you can't make an assumption based on one set of data points. Scientists run an experiment multiple times to corroborate their findings. Some scientists do nothing but repeat other folks experiments in an attempt to prove or disprove them. One set of findings from Colorado does not a hard and firm factual case make.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled toke of generic unaltered pot.
-
Um, hang on Mr Conspiracy Theory. You are jumping to some conclusions.
He asked a simple question. "Got any data from Washington?" Not because he already knew the answer, but because he figured someone like you who is all over this pro/con argument would have that info at your fingertips. You had several possible responses, any of which could have been correct.
1. No, you only looked at Colorado data.
2. Yes, you looked at Washington data as well, but it was pretty much the same as Colorado and you were already hinging on TL;DR territory, so you didn't mention it.
3. Yes, you looked at Washington data but chose not to mention it because it did not support the Colorado data, and you wanted to make a statement without silly facts and figures clouding the issue.
Accusing him of some grand plot against you when few others saw it that way is the sign of a delusional mind. You smoking a Sherm?
Sani's point is that you can't make an assumption based on one set of data points. Scientists run an experiment multiple times to corroborate their findings. Some scientists do nothing but repeat other folks experiments in an attempt to prove or disprove them. One set of findings from Colorado does not a hard and firm factual case make.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled toke of generic unaltered pot.
I took Chad's post as a RESPONSE to GarMan's initial assumption that anywhere pot was legalized would be mass chaos. His post just pointed out that GarMan's intial assumption was not true - regardless of whats happening in Washington. Whats happened in Colorado does in fact prove GarMan's theory wrong.
Now, Washington may very well be in more turmoil than Colorado in re to pot, but that still doesn't make the aforementioned statement any less true.
-
I took Chizzy's post to mean we should all get together and do several bong hits of premo Columbian.
I took Sani's comment to mean young girls are hot and they need their collards stirred.
amirite?
-
I took Chizzy's post to mean we should all get together and do several bong hits of premo Columbian.
I took Sani's comment to mean young girls are hot and they need their collards stirred.
amirite?
I took Snags comment to mean, is GH gonna have to cut a bitch up in here?
-
Temporary hijack: I have never smoked pot. I am quite old enough for it to have been a thing for my generation and those since, but my dad was an undercover narc for most of my childhood, and with law enforcement connections all over the damn place. He would probably STILL know if I did it. My phone would light up about .03 seconds after I took the first hit with a text message telling me to put down the bong.
Having thus shared my guilty secret, I have to know - am I the only pot virgin on here?
-
I bet I know why Chizads butt is sore.
-
I took Snags comment to mean, is GH gonna have to cut a bitch up in here?
The interpretation power is strong in this one.
-
Let's start slow...
First off, not my hypothesis.
I believe your hypothesis was...I'll save you the trouble. There has never been a direct marijuana related death throughout history.
I will call bullshit on this.
There may have never been anyone OD on marijuana throughout history but to say there has never been a death that was marijuana related makes no sense.
Which then led to the strawman argument about marijuana DUIs that take up pretty much the next two and half pages of this thread. Remember? You kept going on and on about jeeps and ditches.
See above.
You aren't suggesting it was the jeep's or the ditch's fault are you?
You know....mixed with substances like jeeps or ditches.
I think we should outlaw ditches and jeeps.
why would I not ask the person who obviously is more concerned with this issue than almost anyone else on the board? You felt the need to bring up quotes from five years ago so this is obviously a sensitive issue for you (and possibly your butt).
I'm sorry I know how to use the search function. This apparently is painful to your butt since it's been brought up multiple times.
The Colorado study came out yesterday when I posted it. It was relevant to this thread where at least three people were declaring that legalization would lead to masses driving while high. I see this study that directly refutes it, so I searched for the conversation and quoted the dumb.
Um, hang on Mr Conspiracy Theory. You are jumping to some conclusions.
He asked a simple question. "Got any data from Washington?" Not because he already knew the answer, but because he figured someone like you who is all over this pro/con argument would have that info at your fingertips. You had several possible responses, any of which could have been correct.
1. No, you only looked at Colorado data.
2. Yes, you looked at Washington data as well, but it was pretty much the same as Colorado and you were already hinging on TL;DR territory, so you didn't mention it.
3. Yes, you looked at Washington data but chose not to mention it because it did not support the Colorado data, and you wanted to make a statement without silly facts and figures clouding the issue.
Accusing him of some grand plot against you when few others saw it that way is the sign of a delusional mind. You smoking a Sherm?
I did? I'm pretty sure my response was literally these two words:
Do you?
Directly proceeded by Sani jumping down my ass about quoting someone from earlier in this thread because it was five years ago and therefore irrelevant. And I'm "threatened" by his question.
No. I was asking. I figured someone who beats the benefits of pot drum as much as you do would have that.
I personally like looking at multiple sets of data whether it supports what I think or not. That's how new learning takes place, but since you seem to feel threatened by my asking we can just make the blanket statement that pot makes it safer to drive.
Correlation is not causation, but since Washington is the only other state who has it legalized I thought that would be a good contrast and compare item. I mean surely someone who is bringing up quotes from 5 years ago would like to look deeply at the subject matter?
All that from the words "Do" and "You" and a question mark. Which somehow equates to me being an Alex Jones nut job thinking the world's out to get me. Ok...
Sani's point is that you can't make an assumption based on one set of data points. Scientists run an experiment multiple times to corroborate their findings. Some scientists do nothing but repeat other folks experiments in an attempt to prove or disprove them. One set of findings from Colorado does not a hard and firm factual case make.
Nor did I ever suggest otherwise. However, when there is one study on the subject, it is certainly a stronger indicator than no study at all. Do you disagree? It's irrelevant because Washington hasn't conducted their own study to confirm the same findings?
-
I'm not jumping on your ass but for you to act like you were genuinely asking me for data from from Washington is a farce.
I also never said it was irrelevant or that i discounted it. Just simply asked if you had any data from the only other apples to apples source?
So it really brings us back to you being up in arms about something that most of the rest of us give less than two flying buttfucks about.
Plus we should still outlaw jeeps and ditches.
-
I'm not jumping on your ass but for you to act like you were genuinely asking me for data from from Washington is a farce.
Well, I was. If you had conflicting data, I'd be happy to see it. Based on my original suspicions, and then confirmed by the Colorado study, I would wager that if and when Washington does conduct a study, it will have similar findings. But if not, great. Let that information enter the conversation and we'll go from there.
I seriously assumed you were asking because you knew of some other study that I did not.
So it really brings us back to you being up in arms about something that most of the rest of us give less than two flying buttfucks about.
Again, my level of give-a-fuck has been greatly exaggerated. I haven't smoked pot probably since before this thread was started five and a half years ago. I can count on my fingers the total number of times that I have.
I just don't like dumb arguments that completely deny indisputable facts, which is largely what the other side of the argument in this thread has been.
-
Wait a minute. Sani jumped down into Chizad's ass? They've turned another straight man. They are taking over this country right before our eyes. And they're high.
-
Ive been drunk enough to where I had no business behing behind the wheel of a 2 ton piece of metal going 60 mph. If I had, bad things would have likely happened.
And you know if you got that high and tried to drive, that would be regulated right? Just like drinking. High and can't walk a straight line? Equivelant to a DUI. Thats why we say regulate and tax it just like any other substance.
Also wondering what pot you got a hold of to make you hallucinate that badly.
From a dude in Birmingham. And yes, according to all the relevant sources weed used in massive quantities by someone with little tolerance has the capacity to cause visual and auditory hallucinations. I wasn't complaining. I liked them.
Deciding I was flat like cardboard was less a hallucination than a matter of disorientation. I laid flat on the couch, like planking, while I worried somebody was going to come home and discover that I was in that state. I also kept picking up my phone and wondering why it wasn't ringing while simultaneously worrying that it would.
Medicine affects me weirdly anyway. I hallucinate from anesthesia. Sheep usually. Talking sheep. Non drowsy pills knock me out. I once took two Tavist-D tablets and slept for 48 straight hours. They were on the verge of taking me to the emergency room when I came to. Could hear people talking but could not respond.
The weed was more a matter of quantity. Don't do it regularly. When I did? I smoked a LOT. Treated it like a binge drinking 18 year old. "I don't feel anything, let me hit that a few more times." Quantities that would make Cheech and Chong go "damn, dude."
Did it on the golf course not too long ago. Guy I was playing with had rigged a vapor smoker to roast it and we burned a huge pile. It got ridiculous. Teed off twice on the same hole because neither me or my partner could remember whether we had teed off or not. And I later forgot how to swing. Or to be more precise I thought about and felt each individual component of the swing which rendered me unable to make it happen. I don't see how people can play sports while high.
Is it "safer" than booze? I don't know. Anything that interferes with your ability to function can't be good.
-
Did it on the golf course not too long ago. Guy I was playing with had rigged a vapor smoker to roast it and we burned a huge pile. It got ridiculous. Teed off twice on the same hole because neither me or my partner could remember whether we had teed off or not. And I later forgot how to swing. Or to be more precise I thought about and felt each individual component of the swing which rendered me unable to make it happen. I don't see how people can play sports while high.
Now, that is completely plausible and likely. Especially if you don't partake often and then go nuts.
But do you remember the first time you got a hold of a bottle of whiskey and probably went way overboard because you didn't know your limits? Didn't think so.
-
Now, that is completely plausible and likely. Especially if you don't partake often and then go nuts.
But do you remember the first time you got a hold of a bottle of whiskey and probably went way overboard because you didn't know your limits? Didn't think so.
I remember hazy parts of it. Holy shit I was a mess. And in public.
-
Now, that is completely plausible and likely. Especially if you don't partake often and then go nuts.
But do you remember the first time you got a hold of a bottle of whiskey and probably went way overboard because you didn't know your limits? Didn't think so.
Do you remember the first time you took it up the butt? I thought so.
-
not alone
Temporary hijack: I have never smoked pot. I am quite old enough for it to have been a thing for my generation and those since, but my dad was an undercover narc for most of my childhood, and with law enforcement connections all over the damn place. He would probably STILL know if I did it. My phone would light up about .03 seconds after I took the first hit with a text message telling me to put down the bong.
Having thus shared my guilty secret, I have to know - am I the only pot virgin on here?
You are not alone.
Never have I taken any drug that was not prescribed to me.
I would, however, try to outdrink you and then have sex wth you. (Hey. We all have our vices)
I do, however, propose that MJ is legalized and regulated.
But I also feel that if you want to plant your whole backyard with it, then so be it. You just cannot sell it.
-
not alone
You are not alone.
Never have I taken any drug that was not prescribed to me.
I would, however, try to outdrink you and then have sex wth you. (Hey. We all have our vices)
I do, however, propose that MJ is legalized and regulated.
But I also feel that if you want to plant your whole backyard with it, then so be it. You just cannot sell it.
Two takeaways from that post.
(1) I appreciate that you respect me enough to "try" and outdrink me. Depends on what we are drinking, but I could still probably hold my own if it's wine.
(2) Unless this post is directed specifically at me? The rest of the guys better think twice before letting you get drunk when they are around if it makes you that horny.
-
http://www.9news.com.au/world/2014/08/07/03/13/road-fatalities-at-all-time-low-since-marijuana-legalised-in-colorado (http://www.9news.com.au/world/2014/08/07/03/13/road-fatalities-at-all-time-low-since-marijuana-legalised-in-colorado)
-
I'm not jumping on your ass...
...two flying buttfucks about.
VV would like more information. Sounds kinky.
-
I remember hazy parts of it. Holy shit I was a mess. And in public.
Thats actually a pretty awesome story.
-
Do you remember the first time you took it up the butt? I thought so.
To quote Chizad....DO YOU?
-
I'm guessing most here don't know why it became illegal and has stayed illegal for so long and it has less to do with the psychoactive ingredients in THC than some might think.
-
Thats actually a pretty awesome story.
Ninth or tenth grade. Was still in band at the time. Band at my high school was actually pretty awesome. Everybody was in it. But again, I digress.
Early Times. Large bottle. A friend and I split it, straight. I was fine for a while. And then I was not. I told a chaperone to eat shit and die.
During the pregame show I was goose-stepping instead of marching. And I executed spins on every yard line. At one point I apparently dropped to one knee and began my solo. Except I had no solo. I continued to goose step off the field and was informed that I performed some "Nazi-like" movements with my hands.
While the first half was going on I was summoned by the band director. Our bleacher seats were at the far end of the stadium and there was a large grassy hill beside them. I tried to see the band director at the top of the hill but I remember that all I was able to see were pinpricks of light where the stadium lights were supposed to be. The rest was a black hole.
Most of this has been told to me as I have very little memory of it.
I decided the steps were too difficult to traverse, so I elected to try the grassy hill. Mistake. Legend has it that I fell and rolled to the bottom three times. I say only once, but what difference does it make at this point.
I do remember the band director guy snarling at me and telling me I better make it through the halftime show. I have no idea how (or if) I got to my seat. I don't remember the rest of the game, the halftime show, leaving the game or anything until we were back to the bandroom and my dad pulled up to get me.
My dad does not curse. When he saw me (and probably smelled me) all he said was What the FUCK is wrong with you? My reply is lost to the ages.
The next morning my mom woke me at 6 a.m. for eggs, grits, bacon, toast and chocolate milk. My mom never cooked. My dad glared at me, daring me not to eat it all. I choked it down and held it. Then he surprised me by announcing that I was going to Auburn for the game. Long car ride. Hot as hell. But I survived it. Didn't puke. Felt like mortally wounded hell, but I made it. Don't ask me who Auburn played, I have no idea.
On Monday I was called to the band director's office. We had a strict no alcohol policy. My band director, who never cursed, asked me What in the HELL was wrong with you?
I had thought about it all weekend. Went with the "I thought I was coming down with a cold and I took some prescription stuff I found in my mom's purse. I don't think it was for a cold. I shouldn't have stolen it from her purse. It messed my mind up."
You weren't drunk? Because if you were drunk I have to kick you out of band and you'll be suspended for a week. You could get expelled. I just need you to tell me, were you drunk?
No sir. I took some pills I found in my mom's purse.
Don't let it happen again. The principal is waiting for you in the main office.
Get to the principal's office. I have only a fuzzy memory of telling the chaperone to eat shit and die. But she remembered and ratted me out.
I got a week in the hot box for that. We had a trailer out back in the middle of a field. Divided into two rooms. Nothing in each of the rooms but a single light bulb and a chair. No windows. They locked us in there at first bell and there we stayed until 3:30. Brought us our lunch. Like prison.
This whore special ed teacher got the assignment to bring me my lunch one day and she used that opportunity to scold me at length. Said I was a waste of potential and at my current rate, would never graduate.
On graduation night I bought a cake at the grocery store, had them put "You'll never graduate" on it and gave it to her. Told her she could eat it. I was eye-squinting drunk when I did so. There is an urban legend that I goose-stepped across the stage to get my diploma, but I choose not to believe it.
-
"If it says no swimming and my son is drowning...I'm in the water (to save my son), I don't care what the sign says."
http://youtu.be/UWNo6W1ZNDk (http://youtu.be/UWNo6W1ZNDk)
-
Long-term effects...
http://youtu.be/WvvWRkefnbI (http://youtu.be/WvvWRkefnbI)
-
Long-term effects...
http://youtu.be/WvvWRkefnbI (http://youtu.be/WvvWRkefnbI)
He's outlived Cash, Williams, Jennings and Jones - all big fans of the.....pills and alcohol.
But weed...bad.
-
Two takeaways from that post.
(1) I appreciate that you respect me enough to "try" and outdrink me. Depends on what we are drinking, but I could still probably hold my own if it's wine.
(2) Unless this post is directed specifically at me? The rest of the guys better think twice before letting you get drunk when they are around if it makes you that horny.
I was speaking in past tense. I don't power drink any more. And I am too old to chase tail. (that includes any of you)
But I still like to have a fun time, romantic walks on the beach, and holding hands...
And I don't care if you burn one. As long as you are having a good respectable time, its all good.
That's another thing. I don't think I have ever seen anyone high make a true ass of themselves like a drunk does.
-
It has to be said that CCTAU is the voice of reason in a political thread.
-
I'm guessing most here don't know why it became illegal and has stayed illegal for so long and it has less to do with the psychoactive ingredients in THC than some might think.
(http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/culture_test/Citizen%20Kane_post.jpg)
-
It has to be said that CCTAU is the voice of reason in a political thread.
He must have let his aggression out last night.....Let me check the blotter for unsolved beatings.
-
It has to be said that CCTAU is the voice of reason in a political thread.
Strange bed fellows, you two.
-
To quote Chizad....DO YOU?
Of course I do. As I'm sure you do, but for different reasons. You and Chizad had that "special friend" and I just got violently rear-ended. I had no choice in the matter, I promise.
-
Of course I do. As I'm sure you do, but for different reasons. You and Chizad had that "special friend" and I just got violently rear-ended. I had no choice in the matter, I promise.
I have drank beers with Chizad..I have eaten BBQ with Chizad. Even watched some great games last year with the guy. But never ever has the topic of taking one up the butt ever been discussed. Well....except that one time when VV came creeping around. Thats usually his topic of choice.
-
I have drank beers with Chizad..I have eaten BBQ with Chizad. Even watched some great games last year with the guy. But never ever has the topic of taking one up the butt ever been discussed. Well....except that one time when VV came creeping around. Thats usually his topic of choice.
Did you ever wake up disoriented with a sore ass?
-
Strange bed fellows, you two.
Don't make me choke a bitch!
I'm not the aggressive type, I just don't back down.
We have become such a manny pan by nationtaht if you don't cower in fear to the mainstream, you are labeled .
I don't like liberals, that makes me a racist.
I'm not ashamed of being white, that makes me a racist.
I don't agree with gay marriage, that makes me a homophobe.
I don't agree with open borders, that makes me a racist hater.
I believe in the second amendment, that makes me a racist hater homophobe white gun-nut redneck.
So be it. I know who I am.
And if you think filling up our prisons with tokers and letting the rapists go free, then you are pretty much what is wrong with America today!
-
Don't make me choke a bitch!
I'm not the aggressive type, I just don't back down.
We have become such a manny pan by nationtaht if you don't cower in fear to the mainstream, you are labeled .
I don't like liberals, that makes me a racist.
I'm not ashamed of being white, that makes me a racist.
I don't agree with gay marriage, that makes me a homophobe.
I don't agree with open borders, that makes me a racist hater.
I believe in the second amendment, that makes me a racist hater homophobe white gun-nut redneck.
So be it. I know who I am.
And if you think filling up our prisons with tokers and letting the rapists go free, then you are pretty much what is wrong with America today!
Murrica bitches!
-
Don't make me choke a bitch!
I'm not the aggressive type, I just don't back down.
We have become such a manny pan by nationtaht if you don't cower in fear to the mainstream, you are labeled .
I don't like liberals, that makes me a racist.
I'm not ashamed of being white, that makes me a racist.
I don't agree with gay marriage, that makes me a homophobe.
I don't agree with open borders, that makes me a racist hater.
I believe in the second amendment, that makes me a racist hater homophobe white gun-nut redneck.
So be it. I know who I am.
And if you think filling up our prisons with tokers and letting the rapists go free, then you are pretty much what is wrong with America today!
It is a sad day when pot offenders get more time in prison than a child molestor. Yes..it has happened.
-
Just a quick question. What the HELL makes a grown ass man want to have sex with a child? (Sani excluded) Just today, down here in little ole Dothan, Alabama the paper has arrests of 3 men. One had sex with a 14 year old but had already been busted for downloading child porn. The next had sex with a 12 year old and the third guy was charged with "Sexual Torture" of an 8 year old and 9 year old girl. This isn't unique. Not a week goes by that someone is not popped for raping a kid.
How the hell do you look at an 8 year old child and think about having sex with her?
-
Just a quick question. What the HELL makes a grown ass man want to have sex with a child? (Sani excluded) Just today, down here in little ole Dothan, Alabama the paper has arrests of 3 men. One had sex with a 14 year old but had already been busted for downloading child porn. The next had sex with a 12 year old and the third guy was charged with "Sexual Torture" of an 8 year old and 9 year old girl. This isn't unique. Not a week goes by that someone is not popped for raping a kid.
How the hell do you look at an 8 year old child and think about having sex with her?
Some people are fucked up.
-
Just a quick question. What the HELL makes a grown ass man want to have sex with a child? (Sani excluded) Just today, down here in little ole Dothan, Alabama the paper has arrests of 3 men. One had sex with a 14 year old but had already been busted for downloading child porn. The next had sex with a 12 year old and the third guy was charged with "Sexual Torture" of an 8 year old and 9 year old girl. This isn't unique. Not a week goes by that someone is not popped for raping a kid.
How the hell do you look at an 8 year old child and think about having sex with her?
Thank the judicial system. So many sex offenders are put on "probation" so as not to over crowd the prison system. And the ones that do go to prison don't get the treatment they should. Some of these people go to prison and go "sissy" by choice.
I worked a case that sent two guys to prison for breaking in to several houses. One of these turds acted like he was the biggest bad a%# in the world because he had been in prison before. Well long story short, I stopped a vehicle the other day and one of the guys had gotten out and was on probation. He tells me that Mr. Hard A@# went to prison and was now a "sissy". He openly dressed the part and takes it in the brown eye by choice.
After working cases and talking to these guys that have been to prison, I have come to the realization that prison is not near as bad as you would think.
-
Thank the judicial system. So many sex offenders are put on "probation" so as not to over crowd the prison system. And the ones that do go to prison don't get the treatment they should. Some of these people go to prison and go "sissy" by choice.
I worked a case that sent two guys to prison for breaking in to several houses. One of these turds acted like he was the biggest bad a%# in the world because he had been in prison before. Well long story short, I stopped a vehicle the other day and one of the guys had gotten out and was on probation. He tells me that Mr. Hard A@# went to prison and was now a "sissy". He openly dressed the part and takes it in the brown eye by choice.
After working cases and talking to these guys that have been to prison, I have come to the realization that prison is not near as bad as you would think.
does this mean yes to the buttseks?
VV will take your case pro boner
-
(https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/l/t1.0-0/10584060_684058851681789_2217865720779557216_n.jpg?oh=0e323796819aac29c592beba766da82b&oe=5462DDB5)
The pharmaceutical companies want to keep it illegal so that they can manufacture it in pill form, they've already created Marinol (a synthetic cannabis given to cancer patients by the hospitals)...but, yet, Cannabis has no medical purposes.
-
And Robin Williams just offed himself. Why? Dude was an alcoholic. A substance that is legal. Maybe pot would have helped. Alcohol sure didn't.
-
And Robin Williams just offed himself. Why? Dude was an alcoholic. A substance that is legal. Maybe pot would have helped. Alcohol sure didn't.
Dude, really?
Maybe butt sex would have helped.
-
Dude, really?
Maybe butt sex would have helped.
Tongue meet cheek. Dude.
-
Tongue meet cheek. Dude.
Well not exactly butt sex but could lead to that.
-
Well not exactly butt sex but could lead to that.
VV prefers a tongue IN his cheeks.
-
And Robin Williams just offed himself. Why? Dude was an alcoholic. A substance that is legal. Maybe pot would have helped. Alcohol sure didn't.
The more important, and undeniable part of his point.
-
The more important, and undeniable part of his point.
Well now wait a minute. Until we see his BAC, there is no way to know if he affixiated himself in the front or back seat of an SUV.
-
Well now wait a minute. Until we see his BAC, there is no way to know if he affixiated himself in the front or back seat of an SUV.
http://www.webmd.com/depression/alcohol-and-depresssion (http://www.webmd.com/depression/alcohol-and-depresssion)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130212075432.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130212075432.htm)
-
http://www.webmd.com/depression/alcohol-and-depresssion (http://www.webmd.com/depression/alcohol-and-depresssion)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130212075432.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130212075432.htm)
www.imagayracist.com (http://www.imagayracist.com)
-
The more important, and undeniable part of his point.
And don't get me wrong. I don't want alkyhawl illegal. I enjoy it. I like it. Should be perfectly legal.
Point is, the rule isn't that something has to be perfectly safe for you and or HELP YOU to be legal. Its pretty obvious that alcohol is not safe for some people in certain amounts, and in certain situations.
-
And don't get me wrong. I don't want alkyhawl illegal. I enjoy it. I like it. Should be perfectly legal.
Point is, the rule isn't that something has to be perfectly safe for you and or HELP YOU to be legal. Its pretty obvious that alcohol is not safe for some people in certain amounts, and in certain situations.
200% agree.
-
Just a quick question. What the HELL makes a grown ass man want to have sex with a child? (Sani excluded) Just today, down here in little ole Dothan, Alabama the paper has arrests of 3 men. One had sex with a 14 year old but had already been busted for downloading child porn. The next had sex with a 12 year old and the third guy was charged with "Sexual Torture" of an 8 year old and 9 year old girl. This isn't unique. Not a week goes by that someone is not popped for raping a kid.
How the hell do you look at an 8 year old child and think about having sex with her?
They are born that way. Should they not have rights also? Isn't that discrimination?
-
They are born that way. Should they not have rights also? Isn't that discrimination?
Peruse Reddit for a while. There's a contingency of folks who seriously believe this.
-
Peruse Reddit for a while. There's a contingency of folks who seriously believe this.
Sure thing. Right after I am done perusing Wooly Al and the Al.com comments sections.
-
http://www.webmd.com/depression/alcohol-and-depresssion (http://www.webmd.com/depression/alcohol-and-depresssion)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130212075432.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130212075432.htm)
Sarcasm and reference to articles about Lutz just sailed right past you.
My bad for not doing a better job with it next time.
-
Sarcasm and reference to articles about Lutz just sailed right past you.
My bad for not doing a better job with it next time.
That was kind of low down Mister. If I had a rubber hose, I'd beat you down.
-
The reason Alcohol isn't illegal anymore is because it serves no threat to the paper, oil, plastic or pharmaceutical industries. It helps the pharmaceutical & the rehab industries...same is said for the Tobacco industries.
Hemp & the species of Cannabis plants on the other hand? That's a threat to ALL of those industries if the US would decide to grow it again, instead of importing it from China.
-
This is a power move right here:
http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/fuck-it-tv-reporter-quits-on-air-to-fight-for-mariju-1637568743 (http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/fuck-it-tv-reporter-quits-on-air-to-fight-for-mariju-1637568743)
-
This is a power move right here:
http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/fuck-it-tv-reporter-quits-on-air-to-fight-for-mariju-1637568743 (http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/fuck-it-tv-reporter-quits-on-air-to-fight-for-mariju-1637568743)
She needs an invitation to the X, stat. This is the kind of no nonsense reporting and delivery that we could use a bit of around here.
-
Regarding my status here on the x, fuck it. I quit. J/k. This place would cave in if that happened though.
-
This thread needs another bump. This ought to stir to "pot"...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2783111/The-terrible-truth-cannabis-Expert-s-devastating-20-year-study-finally-demolishes-claims-smoking-pot-harmless.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2783111/The-terrible-truth-cannabis-Expert-s-devastating-20-year-study-finally-demolishes-claims-smoking-pot-harmless.html)
The terrible truth about cannabis: Expert's devastating 20-year study finally demolishes claims that smoking pot is harmless
One in six teenagers who regularly smoke the drug become dependent
It doubles risk of developing psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia
Heavy use in adolescence appears to impair intellectual development
Driving after smoking cannabis doubles risk of having a car crash
Study's author said: 'If cannabis is not addictive then neither is heroin'
The drug is currently legal in two states - Washington and Colorado
A further 21 states have allowed it to be used for medicinal purposes
Obama said earlier this year cannabis is not as dangerous as alcohol
By BEN SPENCER, SCIENCE REPORTER FOR THE DAILY MAIL and WILLS ROBINSON FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 22:40 EST, 6 October 2014 | UPDATED: 08:14 EST, 7 October 2014
...
Personally, I'd still like to see everything legalized as long as we did away with all safety nets and deadbeat subsidies. Darwin would have this mess sorted out in a couple of decades...
-
This thread needs another bump. This ought to stir to "pot"...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2783111/The-terrible-truth-cannabis-Expert-s-devastating-20-year-study-finally-demolishes-claims-smoking-pot-harmless.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2783111/The-terrible-truth-cannabis-Expert-s-devastating-20-year-study-finally-demolishes-claims-smoking-pot-harmless.html)
Personally, I'd still like to see everything legalized as long as we did away with all safety nets and deadbeat subsidies. Darwin would have this mess sorted out in a couple of decades...
Was going to say....you could insert the word "alcohol" where cannibas is in that article and it wouldn't be any less true. Same with some other legal things. Ive never said it can't be dangerous. My main argument is it isn't a good reason to not have it legal since there are other things legal today that are also dangerous. Its hypocrisy and there is no other way to spin it.
-
Was going to say....you could insert the word "alcohol" where cannibas is in that article and it wouldn't be any less true. Same with some other legal things. Ive never said it can't be dangerous. My main argument is it isn't a good reason to not have it legal since there are other things legal today that are also dangerous. Its hypocrisy and there is no other way to spin it.
I suppose that you could even make the same claims about water too, but I think most of us would recognize the differences.
-
I suppose that you could even make the same claims about water too, but I think most of us would recognize the differences.
Maybe. But he is right. The only reason MJ is illegal is for political reasons. I shudder to think of the money we, as a society, have pissed away incarcerating for MJ possession. And the lives that did NOT save.
-
I suppose that you could even make the same claims about water too, but I think most of us would recognize the differences.
Something being dangerous to someone in and of itself isn't a good reason to criminalize it. Thaz all I is saying'. The same dangerous consequences of Pot can also be found in Valium and Hard Liquor. Same consequences and effects are the key part of that. Sure I could drown in water or get electrocuted in it, but it won't run me into a ditch or into another car head on. Those others COULD and HAVE. How many celebs have died from OD's on scripts or how many people have died from someone driving drunk? A LOT.
You could argue none of them should be legal based off the fact that it can have a serious effect on others. But then you go down a slippery slope. And that usually only happens when the user of any of them has made a poor choice on how they used it. It causing a detrimental effect IS illegal though - Assault, DUI, Accident. They could probably do the same with pot - make the pothead walk a straight line, run a test on them, etc. Just like anything else I suppose - all in how it is used and timing.
I think the big picture a lot of folks miss is that the moral argument is such a red herring. Forces unseen are behind a lot of the "keep pot illegal" rhetoric and pay a lot of money for it to be seen. hint hint - big pharma and tobacco companies. And they prey right off evangelicals and conservatives in the Bible Belt.
-
Let's just get serious and legalize everything. This pussy-footing around trying to compare pot to <fill-in-the-blank> is silly. Why does government even have a say in this? And, I don't even think there's a moral argument to this anymore. Put some reasonable regulations on this stuff, and let the little people do what they want as long as it doesn't impact anyone else. But, if you fuck up and make a mess, you better be ready to deal with the consequences. I'm willing to bet that's the concern that has most people uptight.
-
Let's just get serious and legalize everything. This pussy-footing around trying to compare pot to <fill-in-the-blank> is silly. Why does government even have a say in this? And, I don't even think there's a moral argument to this anymore. Put some reasonable regulations on this stuff, and let the little people do what they want as long as it doesn't impact anyone else. But, if you fuck up and make a mess, you better be ready to deal with the consequences. I'm willing to bet that's the concern that has most people uptight.
Yep..
Agree 100%. I don't think most had in mind a "free for all" pot fest with no rules. But the anti pot pushers have pushed that the idea is just that.
-
. . . let the little people do what they want as long as it doesn't impact anyone else.
Wes and I always do whatever the fuck we want, even if it impacts others.
-
Wes and I always do whatever the fuck we want, even if it impacts others.
Whoa, there, bud. Wes is out of your league. :cool:
-
Whoa, there, bud. Wes is out of your league. :cool:
His rectum disagrees.