# Beer, Cigarettes & Marijuana -- What's the difference?



## Cal

Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't? 
- 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
- 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.


----------



## saveliberty

YoungLefty said:


> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.



Get your facts straight and then maybe we can talk.  No one died from a marijuana related incident?  Really?  Link please.


----------



## Rat in the Hat

YoungLefty said:


> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.



What do cigarettes have to do with this? Are you claiming they are also a perception altering substance??


----------



## Cal

saveliberty said:


> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get your facts straight and then maybe we can talk.  No one died from a marijuana related incident?  Really?  Link please.
Click to expand...


Ok, since you seem to know what the number is, please provide. This is where I got my info: Annual Causes of Death in the United States | Drug War Facts


----------



## Cal

Rat in the Hat said:


> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do cigarettes have to do with this? Are you claiming they are also a perception altering substance??
Click to expand...


No. But cigarettes do cause 435,000 deaths a year.


----------



## manu1959

YoungLefty said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get your facts straight and then maybe we can talk.  No one died from a marijuana related incident?  Really?  Link please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, since you seem to know what the number is, please provide. This is where I got my info: Annual Causes of Death in the United States | Drug War Facts
Click to expand...


i knew a dude that was stoned and fell to his death....i am sure weed is harmless....i mean how could a drug harm you....and holding smoke in your lungs...perfectly normal....


----------



## Rat in the Hat

YoungLefty said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do cigarettes have to do with this? Are you claiming they are also a perception altering substance??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. But cigarettes do cause 435,000 deaths a year.
Click to expand...


But how many people die from "cigarette related incidents"??


----------



## gautama

The fact that you'd place BEER in the same category as cigarettes & marijuana explains why you are a "young lefty"...... or IOW, a fool.


----------



## Cecilie1200

YoungLefty said:


> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.



And your stats come from . . . ?


----------



## saveliberty

Gee, no one died from a fire, slip and fall, bicycle, bear or any number of other things not included on your list.  Wonder how many people were high when they died in the car accident, were hunting with a firearm or used another drug in conjunction with marijuana?


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Rat in the Hat said:


> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do cigarettes have to do with this? Are you claiming they are also a perception altering substance??
Click to expand...


They are.

Subtly, yes. But they do - if they didn't, why would someone get addicted to cigarettes?


----------



## saveliberty

Here's an idea.  Stop being a victim and get a job.


----------



## oreo

YoungLefty said:


> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.




Well two of them will kill ya.  Alcohol and tobacco- tobacco with a record of a 30% kill rate---and marijuana--we still haven't had one realted overdose or direct cause of death.

*And I am a conservative tea party member--*--and advocate of medical marijuana.

*SHOCKING--isn't it*--LOL


----------



## theDoctorisIn

saveliberty said:


> Gee, no one died from a fire, slip and fall, bicycle, bear or any number of other things not included on your list.  Wonder how many people were high when they died in the car accident, were hunting with a firearm or used another drug in conjunction with marijuana?



That's the problem with statistics. Most of the time, people who are smoking pot are also doing other drugs, including alcohol. That's why the statistics here are almost completely meaningless. Except the obvious one - no person EVER has died of an overdose of marijuana.

The fact of the matter is that marijuana is significantly less dangerous a drug than alcohol or cigarettes - and the fact that it is illegal while the others are not is due not to facts about the drug, but other political maneuvering.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

oreo said:


> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well two of them will kill ya.  Alcohol and tobacco-with a record of a 30% kill rate---and marijuana--we still haven't had one realted overdose or direct cause of death.
> 
> *And I am a conservative tea party member--*--and advocate of medical marijuana.
> 
> 
> SHOCKING--isn't it--LOL
Click to expand...


It isn't that shocking - but it does increase my respect for you.

We may not agree on many things - but I have the feeling that we agree on more than you'd expect.


----------



## oreo

theDoctorisIn said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, no one died from a fire, slip and fall, bicycle, bear or any number of other things not included on your list.  Wonder how many people were high when they died in the car accident, were hunting with a firearm or used another drug in conjunction with marijuana?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem with statistics. Most of the time, people who are smoking pot are also doing other drugs, including alcohol. That's why the statistics here are almost completely meaningless. Except the obvious one - no person EVER has died of an overdose of marijuana.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that marijuana is significantly less dangerous a drug than alcohol or cigarettes - and the fact that it is illegal while the others are not is due not to facts about the drug, but other political maneuvering.
Click to expand...


Agree 100%.  In fact, the number 1 lobbyist in Washington DC against the use of medical marijuana is in fact, the pharmacutical industry in this country--that has bought and paid for decades of propoganda against a completely organic plant.

This while they're PUSHING on us all their new drugs which is the primary reason why our medical insurance rates have gone through the roof.  New drugs for restless leg syndrome, and all of the other syndromes, including erectile dysnfunction.  You get a 10 second description of what this new pill is for, then a 45 second warning of the side effects, which include:  death, suicidal thoughts, weight gain, musle and joint pain, etc. etc. ect.  Yet--the Federal Government still does not recognize an organic plant--with no long term side effects-while we're spending billions of dollars each year to prosecute and lock up the marijuana user.

Of course, all of this paranoia over something you could grow in your backyard that could wipe out half of your medicine cabinet.

*Our Federal GOVERNMENT at work*!!! _Did I forget to mention that I am a conservative--and active tea party member?_


----------



## Rat in the Hat

theDoctorisIn said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do cigarettes have to do with this? Are you claiming they are also a perception altering substance??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are.
> 
> Subtly, yes. But they do - if they didn't, why would someone get addicted to cigarettes?
Click to expand...


I have friends that claim they are addicted to chocolate. Is this also a perception altering substance?

If cigarettes are in the same rank as marijuana & alcohol, can you provide me with the numbers for drivers convicted of driving under the influence of tobacco???


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Rat in the Hat said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do cigarettes have to do with this? Are you claiming they are also a perception altering substance??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are.
> 
> Subtly, yes. But they do - if they didn't, why would someone get addicted to cigarettes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have friends that claim they are addicted to chocolate. Is this also a perception altering substance?
> 
> If cigarettes are in the same rank as marijuana & alcohol, can you provide me with the numbers for drivers convicted of driving under the influence of tobacco???
Click to expand...


Actually, chocolate is absolutely a "perception altering substance".

Phenethylamine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And, no - I clearly did NOT put cigarettes on the same rank as marijuana and alcohol in terms of "perception alteration".


----------



## Cecilie1200

theDoctorisIn said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, no one died from a fire, slip and fall, bicycle, bear or any number of other things not included on your list.  Wonder how many people were high when they died in the car accident, were hunting with a firearm or used another drug in conjunction with marijuana?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem with statistics. Most of the time, people who are smoking pot are also doing other drugs, including alcohol. That's why the statistics here are almost completely meaningless. Except the obvious one - no person EVER has died of an overdose of marijuana.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that marijuana is significantly less dangerous a drug than alcohol or cigarettes - and the fact that it is illegal while the others are not is due not to facts about the drug, but other political maneuvering.
Click to expand...


It's also necessary to consider that marijuana-related illnesses and incidents (such as traffic accidents) are usually just lumped into the stats for other substances.  The stats for the health effects of tobacco, for example, are derived from statistics on a variety of health problems linked to tobacco, whether the sufferer actually smoked or not.  This means that if long-term marijuana smoking DID cause lung cancer and emphysemia, we'd never know because it would just be labeled a "smoking-related death" and left at that.  

Likewise, people DO get in traffic accidents under the influence of marijuana for the same reasons they do with alcohol:  both of them screw with your reaction time and judgement ability.  But a DUI is a DUI, and they all get counted together, not separated out by WHAT you were "under the influence" of.

Another thing to consider is that marijuana use, being illegal, isn't anything like as widespread as either alcohol and tobacco, so OF COURSE it doesn't have comparable statistics.


----------



## Cecilie1200

oreo said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, no one died from a fire, slip and fall, bicycle, bear or any number of other things not included on your list.  Wonder how many people were high when they died in the car accident, were hunting with a firearm or used another drug in conjunction with marijuana?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem with statistics. Most of the time, people who are smoking pot are also doing other drugs, including alcohol. That's why the statistics here are almost completely meaningless. Except the obvious one - no person EVER has died of an overdose of marijuana.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that marijuana is significantly less dangerous a drug than alcohol or cigarettes - and the fact that it is illegal while the others are not is due not to facts about the drug, but other political maneuvering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree 100%.  In fact, the biggest lobbyist in Washington DC against the use of medical marijuana is in fact, the pharmacutical industry in this country--that has bought and paid for decades of propoganda against a completely organic plant.
> 
> This while they're PUSHING on us all their new drugs which is the primary reason why our medical insurance rates have gone through the roof.  New drugs for restless leg syndrome, and all of the other syndromes, including erectile dysnfunction.  You get a 10 second description of what this new pill is for, then a 45 second warning of the side effects, which include:  death, suicidal thoughts, weight gain, musle and joint pain, etc. etc. ect.  Yet--the Federal Government still does not recognize an organic plant--with no long term side effects-while we're spending billions of dollars each year to prosecute and lock up the marijuana user.
> 
> Of course, all of this paranoia over something you could grow in your backyard that could wipe out half of your medicine cabinet.
> 
> *Our Federal GOVERNMENT at work*!!! _Did I forget to mention that I am a conservative--and active tea party member?_
Click to expand...


What the smuck does "organic" have to do with anything?  Nightshade and hemlock are both "organic", but they'll still kill you.


----------



## The Rabbi

theDoctorisIn said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are.
> 
> Subtly, yes. But they do - if they didn't, why would someone get addicted to cigarettes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have friends that claim they are addicted to chocolate. Is this also a perception altering substance?
> 
> If cigarettes are in the same rank as marijuana & alcohol, can you provide me with the numbers for drivers convicted of driving under the influence of tobacco???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, chocolate is absolutely a "perception altering substance".
> 
> Phenethylamine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> And, no - I clearly did NOT put cigarettes on the same rank as marijuana and alcohol in terms of "perception alteration".
Click to expand...


That's why we see all those chocomoms cashing their welfare checks for Hershey bars and letting their kids starve.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

The Rabbi said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have friends that claim they are addicted to chocolate. Is this also a perception altering substance?
> 
> If cigarettes are in the same rank as marijuana & alcohol, can you provide me with the numbers for drivers convicted of driving under the influence of tobacco???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, chocolate is absolutely a "perception altering substance".
> 
> Phenethylamine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> And, no - I clearly did NOT put cigarettes on the same rank as marijuana and alcohol in terms of "perception alteration".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why we see all those chocomoms cashing their welfare checks for Hershey bars and letting their kids starve.
Click to expand...


Are you attempting to make a point?


----------



## oreo

Rat in the Hat said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do cigarettes have to do with this? Are you claiming they are also a perception altering substance??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are.
> 
> Subtly, yes. But they do - if they didn't, why would someone get addicted to cigarettes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have friends that claim they are addicted to chocolate. Is this also a perception altering substance?
> 
> If cigarettes are in the same rank as marijuana & alcohol, can you provide me with the numbers for drivers convicted of driving under the influence of tobacco???
Click to expand...


You're right--prohibition has never worked in this country.  We witnessed that in the 1930's.  Americans were making bath tub liquor.  The Government realised that it was fruitless to pursue and incarcerate people who wanted to drink alcohol--and then decided to regulate it.  Meaning tax it.

Today--marijuana recreational use is second and second only to alcohol.  It's not near as dangerous or as addictive as alcohol or tobacco.   Yet--it's still illegal.  We spend billions each year for DEA enforcement--who primarily go after marijuana--when we do have serious problems--with crack/cocain/herion and our worst hideous drug meth.

It's time to lay off of marijuana--stop spending money on prosecution and incarceration--and go after the illegal substances that really do harm to our society.


----------



## The Rabbi

theDoctorisIn said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, chocolate is absolutely a "perception altering substance".
> 
> Phenethylamine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> And, no - I clearly did NOT put cigarettes on the same rank as marijuana and alcohol in terms of "perception alteration".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why we see all those chocomoms cashing their welfare checks for Hershey bars and letting their kids starve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you attempting to make a point?
Click to expand...


That you're a moron.
But you demonstrate that better than I ever could.


----------



## Rat in the Hat

theDoctorisIn said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do cigarettes have to do with this? Are you claiming they are also a perception altering substance??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are.
> 
> *Subtly, yes*. But they do - if they didn't, why would someone get addicted to cigarettes?
Click to expand...


Nice qualifier. Must explain why i get falling down drunk on 2 shots, but can smoke 3 cartons and still drive half a country away.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

The Rabbi said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why we see all those chocomoms cashing their welfare checks for Hershey bars and letting their kids starve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you attempting to make a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you're a moron.
> But you demonstrate that better than I ever could.
Click to expand...


Oh, ok. So no, you don't have a point.

Good job.

And thanks for the neg rep. From you, that's a compliment.


----------



## oreo

Cecilie1200 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem with statistics. Most of the time, people who are smoking pot are also doing other drugs, including alcohol. That's why the statistics here are almost completely meaningless. Except the obvious one - no person EVER has died of an overdose of marijuana.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that marijuana is significantly less dangerous a drug than alcohol or cigarettes - and the fact that it is illegal while the others are not is due not to facts about the drug, but other political maneuvering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree 100%.  In fact, the biggest lobbyist in Washington DC against the use of medical marijuana is in fact, the pharmacutical industry in this country--that has bought and paid for decades of propoganda against a completely organic plant.
> 
> This while they're PUSHING on us all their new drugs which is the primary reason why our medical insurance rates have gone through the roof.  New drugs for restless leg syndrome, and all of the other syndromes, including erectile dysnfunction.  You get a 10 second description of what this new pill is for, then a 45 second warning of the side effects, which include:  death, suicidal thoughts, weight gain, musle and joint pain, etc. etc. ect.  Yet--the Federal Government still does not recognize an organic plant--with no long term side effects-while we're spending billions of dollars each year to prosecute and lock up the marijuana user.
> 
> Of course, all of this paranoia over something you could grow in your backyard that could wipe out half of your medicine cabinet.
> 
> *Our Federal GOVERNMENT at work*!!! _Did I forget to mention that I am a conservative--and active tea party member?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the smuck does "organic" have to do with anything?  Nightshade and hemlock are both "organic", but they'll still kill you.
Click to expand...



Then, of course--you have a link to anyone--over the *decades* that has ended up in one of our emergency rooms because of an overdose of marijuana--or one that has died of some kind of lung disease--over long term use of it.

Then maybe--you'll show some credibility.

The facts are:  That our forefathers were fined if they did not grow marijuana plants--whose bi-products were used for rope and tents.  George Washinton's main crop was the marijuana plant--and our *Declaration Of Independence * is written on hemp paper.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Rat in the Hat said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do cigarettes have to do with this? Are you claiming they are also a perception altering substance??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are.
> 
> *Subtly, yes*. But they do - if they didn't, why would someone get addicted to cigarettes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice qualifier. Must explain why i get falling down drunk on 2 shots, but can smoke 3 cartons and still drive half a country away.
Click to expand...


That would be why I put the qualifier there. Of course it's not the same. I never claimed that it was. But medically, yes nicotine is a mood-altering drug.


2 shots? You're a lightweight.


----------



## Rat in the Hat

theDoctorisIn said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are.
> 
> *Subtly, yes*. But they do - if they didn't, why would someone get addicted to cigarettes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice qualifier. Must explain why i get falling down drunk on 2 shots, but can smoke 3 cartons and still drive half a country away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be why I put the qualifier there. Of course it's not the same. I never claimed that it was. But medically, yes nicotine is a mood-altering drug.
> 
> 
> 2 shots? You're a lightweight.
Click to expand...


Only drink at weddings & funerals. And then, only when toasting.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Rat in the Hat said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice qualifier. Must explain why i get falling down drunk on 2 shots, but can smoke 3 cartons and still drive half a country away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be why I put the qualifier there. Of course it's not the same. I never claimed that it was. But medically, yes nicotine is a mood-altering drug.
> 
> 
> 2 shots? You're a lightweight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only drink at weddings & funerals. And then, only when toasting.
Click to expand...


To each their own.

I like my scotch.


----------



## The Rabbi

oreo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agree 100%.  In fact, the biggest lobbyist in Washington DC against the use of medical marijuana is in fact, the pharmacutical industry in this country--that has bought and paid for decades of propoganda against a completely organic plant.
> 
> This while they're PUSHING on us all their new drugs which is the primary reason why our medical insurance rates have gone through the roof.  New drugs for restless leg syndrome, and all of the other syndromes, including erectile dysnfunction.  You get a 10 second description of what this new pill is for, then a 45 second warning of the side effects, which include:  death, suicidal thoughts, weight gain, musle and joint pain, etc. etc. ect.  Yet--the Federal Government still does not recognize an organic plant--with no long term side effects-while we're spending billions of dollars each year to prosecute and lock up the marijuana user.
> 
> Of course, all of this paranoia over something you could grow in your backyard that could wipe out half of your medicine cabinet.
> 
> *Our Federal GOVERNMENT at work*!!! _Did I forget to mention that I am a conservative--and active tea party member?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the smuck does "organic" have to do with anything?  Nightshade and hemlock are both "organic", but they'll still kill you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then, of course--you have a link to anyone--over the *decades* that has ended up in one of our emergency rooms because of an overdose of marijuana--or one that has died of some kind of lung disease--over long term use of it.
> 
> Then maybe--you'll show some credibility.
> 
> The facts are:  That our forefathers were fined if they did not grow marijuana plants--whose bi-products were used for rope and tents.  George Washinton's main crop was the marijuana plant--and our declaration of independence is written on hemp paper.
Click to expand...


Yawn.
This took all of 15 seconds.  The internet is great.
Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction -- As Much As 20 Years Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers


----------



## saveliberty

If you want to get down to "facts" on this subject, none of the three things mentioned are any good for you the way MOST people actually use them.  To see them go on and on about the burden they bear from the laws is quite immature and selfish as near as I can see.


----------



## The Rabbi

saveliberty said:


> If you want to get down to "facts" on this subject, none of the three things mentioned are any good for you the way MOST people actually use them.  To see them go on and on about the burden they bear from the laws is quite immature and selfish as near as I can see.



Most things are not good for people the way they use them.  That is an insane measure of what should and should not be legal.


----------



## oreo

theDoctorisIn said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are.
> 
> *Subtly, yes*. But they do - if they didn't, why would someone get addicted to cigarettes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice qualifier. Must explain why i get falling down drunk on 2 shots, but can smoke 3 cartons and still drive half a country away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be why I put the qualifier there. Of course it's not the same. I never claimed that it was. But medically, yes nicotine is a mood-altering drug.
> 
> 
> 2 shots? You're a lightweight.
Click to expand...



It's a well known fact that *nicotine* is the MOST addictive drug--out of any other narcotic--including  heroin-crack/cocain or meth.


----------



## oreo

saveliberty said:


> If you want to get down to "facts" on this subject, none of the three things mentioned are any good for you the way MOST people actually use them.  To see them go on and on about the burden they bear from the laws is quite immature and selfish as near as I can see.




*The point is--when exactly do you want to STOP spending billions of tax payer dollars in a fruitless effort to save people from themselves?*--


----------



## Rat in the Hat

oreo said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice qualifier. Must explain why i get falling down drunk on 2 shots, but can smoke 3 cartons and still drive half a country away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be why I put the qualifier there. Of course it's not the same. I never claimed that it was. But medically, yes nicotine is a mood-altering drug.
> 
> 
> 2 shots? You're a lightweight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a well known fact that *nicotine* is the MOST addictive drug--out of any other narcotic--including  heroin, crack/cocain.
Click to expand...


But does it cause perception alteration to the point where you can cause harm to others like alcohol and marijuana can?? That was the point of this thread, wasn't it??


----------



## Tom Clancy

/sigh...


Even as a Monthly/Social Weed smoker it's ridiculous to say there are *0* deaths caused by Weed..

I know 1 person who has actually gotten severely injured under the use of Pot..  Not to mention the people i know telling me stories about people who have died under the use. 

Thanks for playing the Ignorant game, come back next week for more.


----------



## oreo

The Rabbi said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the smuck does "organic" have to do with anything?  Nightshade and hemlock are both "organic", but they'll still kill you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then, of course--you have a link to anyone--over the *decades* that has ended up in one of our emergency rooms because of an overdose of marijuana--or one that has died of some kind of lung disease--over long term use of it.
> 
> Then maybe--you'll show some credibility.
> 
> The facts are:  That our forefathers were fined if they did not grow marijuana plants--whose bi-products were used for rope and tents.  George Washinton's main crop was the marijuana plant--and our declaration of independence is written on hemp paper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> This took all of 15 seconds.  The internet is great.
> Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction -- As Much As 20 Years Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers
Click to expand...



Yeah--I figured you would link up to another site--that was paid for by big pharmacutical--*congrats.* *Kind of like looking at global warming stats--LOL.*

You still have not brought up the *NAME* of one single individual that has ended up in the emergency room--and or that has actually *DIED* of long term use of marijuana.

Just to let you know people have been smoking marijuana for *centuries.*


----------



## oreo

Tom Clancy said:


> /sigh...
> 
> 
> Even as a Monthly/Social Weed smoker it's ridiculous to say there are *0* deaths caused by Weed..
> 
> I know 1 person who has actually gotten severely injured under the use of Pot..  Not to mention the people i know telling me stories about people who have died under the use.
> 
> Thanks for playing the Ignorant game, come back next week for more.



If there were someone/anyone that the Federal Government and the Pharmacutical industry could get a name on that actually died from long term use of marijuana--they would have a 24/7 advertisement against it.  You know it--I know it.

As far as you know someone that got "severely injured"--give me a freaking break.  Now go talk to your drunk neighbor that fell off of his porch and broke his leg last weekend---


----------



## oreo

Rat in the Hat said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be why I put the qualifier there. Of course it's not the same. I never claimed that it was. But medically, yes nicotine is a mood-altering drug.
> 
> 
> 2 shots? You're a lightweight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a well known fact that *nicotine* is the MOST addictive drug--out of any other narcotic--including  heroin, crack/cocain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But does it cause perception alteration to the point where you can cause harm to others like alcohol and marijuana can?? That was the point of this thread, wasn't it??
Click to expand...


The answer to your question:

Ask any cop:  Do you have more problems with alcohol related crime or marijuana users?

I think you already know the answer to this.

The death on our highways related to alcohol are extreme.  The domestic violence related to alcohol are extreme.

It may interest you to know that marijuana was actually legal in the United States on two different occassions.  The first being the early 1900's-and then up until WW2 when the war department realised that U.S. soldiers weren't nearly as agressive toward the enemy after smoking MMJ.  Since then--it's been illegal.

Currently there are 14 states in this nation that have medical marijuana approval with another 14 states on the verge of approving it.  Meaning that over half of this nation will have some kind of medical marijuana approval.  Now--you know nothings may continue to want to throw billions of federal tax dollars at chasing down offenders--in a futile effort--to stem a tide that has become the mother height of all incoming Tsunami's--but not me.

I would prefer that our hard earned tax dollars go somewhere else--if only--simply to pay down this enormous deficit.


----------



## Tom Clancy

oreo said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> /sigh...
> 
> 
> Even as a Monthly/Social Weed smoker it's ridiculous to say there are *0* deaths caused by Weed..
> 
> I know 1 person who has actually gotten severely injured under the use of Pot..  Not to mention the people i know telling me stories about people who have died under the use.
> 
> Thanks for playing the Ignorant game, come back next week for more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there were someone/anyone that the Federal Government and the Pharmacutical industry could get a name on that actually died from long term use of marijuana--they would have a 24/7 advertisement against it.  You know it--I know it.
> 
> As far as you know someone that got "severely injured"--give me a freaking break.  Now go talk to your drunk neighbor that fell off of his porch and broke his leg---
Click to expand...


Ignorance at it's best. 

Sure, no one has died due to Overdose..  But being under the effect of it? Sure.. I've been there, saw it myself.


----------



## Rat in the Hat

oreo said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a well known fact that *nicotine* is the MOST addictive drug--out of any other narcotic--including  heroin, crack/cocain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But does it cause perception alteration to the point where you can cause harm to others like alcohol and marijuana can?? That was the point of this thread, wasn't it??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer to your question:
> 
> Ask any cop:  Do you have more problems with alcohol related crime or marijuana users?
> 
> I think you already know the answer to this.
> 
> The death on our highways related to alcohol are extreme.  The domestic violence related to alcohol are extreme.
> 
> It may interest you to know that marijuana was actually legal in the United States on two different occassions.  The first being the early 1900's-and then up until WW2 when the war department realised that U.S. soldiers weren't nearly as agressive toward the enemy after smoking MMJ.  Since then--it's been illegal ever since.
Click to expand...


Actually, I was asking about nicotine & cigarettes.


----------



## bucs90

YoungLefty said:


> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.



WRONG!!!!!

Factor in how many thugs are killed in drug deals gone bad, and you'll have the correct number of weed related deaths.

You potheads always preach about legalizing weed, but you don't know the consequence that would bring. Think about it: In the ghettos and trailor parks across America, selling weed is big business. Lots of thugs and bubbas get by with their bills by selling some dope. If weed was legalized, corporations would buy up the supply, offer better weed, etc, and put the local dealers out of business. Ya know, those evil corporations and how they are.

So then what would your local gangsta thug dope dealer do? Just say "Dang, now I gotta go back to living poor"? No. He'd start selling harder drugs, or worse, turn to even MORE property crime to make ends meet.

Keeping weed illegal is actually a FAVOR to the thugs in the ghetto as they can keep a steady cash flow coming in while having to pay a fine once in a while when caught. And the number caught vs the number selling is nowhere close. Odds are they can keep selling and making money without ever getting busted.


----------



## bucs90

oreo said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a well known fact that *nicotine* is the MOST addictive drug--out of any other narcotic--including  heroin, crack/cocain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But does it cause perception alteration to the point where you can cause harm to others like alcohol and marijuana can?? That was the point of this thread, wasn't it??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer to your question:
> 
> Ask any cop:  Do you have more problems with alcohol related crime or marijuana users?
> 
> I think you already know the answer to this.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I was one for 8 years in Atlanta. I'll answer it.

The total number of problems from alcohol users and weed users? About the same. True, 99% of DUI's are from alcohol. Seldom if ever from weed. Sometimes heroin, crack, prescrips, etc. DUI is an alcohol problem, no doubt.

But, you said "problems", not DUI's. Problems stemming from weed use include unemployment, car break ins, larceny, burglary, shoplifting, etc. Basically stealing shit to get money because they can't keep a job.

Does that include ALL weed smokers? No. Of course not. Just like all beer drinkers aren't driving DUI, in fact, few do. Only the extreme users of alcohol, as so many DUI drivers are REPEAT offenders.

So, I basically think weed makes you more of whatever you already are. Lazy, smart, criminal, theif, artist, whatever. 

But I never worked a murder that resulted from a beer or cigarette transaction gone bad. Weed? Yep. And if those thugs are willing to kill each other over $50 worth of weed........imagine the extreme measures they would go to if the government legalized weed, thus eliminating that lucrative cash flow they get from illegally selling it? The illegal status of weed is what keeps money flowing into some bad neighborhoods. I'd rather have that than legalize it and watch what those people then turn to next to make an easy buck.


----------



## bucs90

Tom Clancy said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> /sigh...
> 
> 
> Even as a Monthly/Social Weed smoker it's ridiculous to say there are *0* deaths caused by Weed..
> 
> I know 1 person who has actually gotten severely injured under the use of Pot..  Not to mention the people i know telling me stories about people who have died under the use.
> 
> Thanks for playing the Ignorant game, come back next week for more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there were someone/anyone that the Federal Government and the Pharmacutical industry could get a name on that actually died from long term use of marijuana--they would have a 24/7 advertisement against it.  You know it--I know it.
> 
> As far as you know someone that got "severely injured"--give me a freaking break.  Now go talk to your drunk neighbor that fell off of his porch and broke his leg---
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance at it's best.
> 
> Sure, no one has died due to Overdose..  But being under the effect of it? Sure.. I've been there, saw it myself.
Click to expand...


Yep. And many have died during the trade of it in our streets when gone bad. People willing to kill over $50 worth of weed.

Now imagine it's legalized, corporate takeover of the manufacturing and selling of it, and that lucrative cash flow through illegal sales dries up. Then, those same folks willing to kill over a few dollars lose that income and must find some other means of making quick, cheap money. (See: Increased burglary, theft, fraud, etc).


----------



## Avatar4321

What does it matter? Why on earth would you want any of them?


----------



## Kalam

Avatar4321 said:


> What does it matter? Why on earth would you want any of them?


Smoke a bunch of weed and you'll see why.


----------



## Tom Clancy

Kalam said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does it matter? Why on earth would you want any of them?
> 
> 
> 
> Smoke a bunch of weed and you'll see why.
Click to expand...


----------



## blu

saveliberty said:


> Here's an idea.  Stop being a victim and get a job.



successful troll is successful


----------



## blu

the difference is the lack of scare tactics from nutjobs in past decades against weed. cigarettes and beer are also hard to produce in mass by one's self where marijuana can be easily grown in bulk in home. keeping weed illegal keeps the profits from both legal cigs & beer and from illegal weed grown elsewhere in hte hands of politicians and big business men and they won't have it any other way.


----------



## Foxfyre

All three are addictive with marijuana being the least addictive and nicotine the most addictive.

There is no way to smoke cigarettes without having lasting measurable negative effect on the body though permanent damage usually takes some time to accumulate.

It is possible to take marijuana and alcohol in moderation without having lasting measurable effect on the body.

Unless taken in very large doses, nicotine generally does not produce any measurable effect on judgment and reaction time.

It is possible to use alcohol in moderation without having any significant effect on judgment and reaction time.  Alcohol abuse can generate hostile and abusive behavior in some.

I am less convinced that it is possible to use marijuana in moderation without having any significant effect on judgment and reaction time.  Marijuana generally does not generate hostile and abusive behavior.

Both alcohol and marijuane have been linked to fatal accidents; possibly alcohol much more than marijuana because it is used much more than marijuana.

Both cigarette smoking and alcohol abuse can trigger many ugly diseases.  Marijuana is generally used more sparingly and therefore is less likely to cause such diseases; however it is a toxic substance and when used extensively produces uglies just as cigarette smoking does.

Alcohol leaves the system generally in 24 hours or less depending on quanity consumed.  Nicotine requires up to seven days to clear the system and marijuana up to four weeks depending on how much is consumed.


----------



## Avatar4321

Kalam said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does it matter? Why on earth would you want any of them?
> 
> 
> 
> Smoke a bunch of weed and you'll see why.
Click to expand...


And why would i need to poison my body to find out that it's not healthy.


----------



## eots

Rat in the Hat said:


> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do cigarettes have to do with this? Are you claiming they are also a perception altering substance??
Click to expand...


lol of course they are


nicotine's mood-altering effects are different by report: in particular it is both a stimulant and a relaxant.[26] First causing a release of glucose from the liver and epinephrine (adrenaline) from the adrenal medulla, it causes stimulation. Users report feelings of relaxation, sharpness, calmness, and alertness.[27] By reducing the appetite and raising the metabolism, some smokers may lose weight as a consequence.[28][29]
When a cigarette is smoked, nicotine-rich blood passes from the lungs to the brain within seven seconds and immediately stimulates the release of many chemical messengers including acetylcholine, norepinephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin, arginine, dopamine, autocrine agents, and beta-endorphin.[30] This release of neurotransmitters and hormones is responsible for most of nicotine's effects. Nicotine appears to enhance concentration[31] and memory due to the increase of acetylcholine. It also appears to enhance alertness due to the increases of acetylcholine and norepinephrine. Arousal is increased by the increase of norepinephrine. Pain is reduced by the increases of acetylcholine and beta-endorphin. Anxiety is reduced by the increase of beta-endorphin. Nicotine also extends the duration of positive effects of dopamine[32] and increases sensitivity in brain reward systems.[33] Most cigarettes (in the smoke inhaled) contain 1 to 3 milligrams of nicotine.[34]
Research suggests that, when smokers wish to achieve a stimulating effect, they take short quick puffs, which produce a low level of blood nicotine.[35] This stimulates nerve transmission. When they wish to relax, they take deep puffs, which produce a high level of blood nicotine, which depresses the passage of nerve impulses, producing a mild sedative effect. At low doses, nicotine potently enhances the actions of norepinephrine and dopamine in the brain, causing a drug effect typical of those of psychostimulants. At higher doses, nicotine enhances the effect of serotonin and opiate activity, producing a calming, pain-killing effect. Nicotine is unique in comparison to most drugs, as its profile changes from stimulant to sedative/pain killer in increasing dosages and use. (Another drug that behaves similarly is ethanol.)

Nicotine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Father Time

oreo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agree 100%.  In fact, the biggest lobbyist in Washington DC against the use of medical marijuana is in fact, the pharmacutical industry in this country--that has bought and paid for decades of propoganda against a completely organic plant.
> 
> This while they're PUSHING on us all their new drugs which is the primary reason why our medical insurance rates have gone through the roof.  New drugs for restless leg syndrome, and all of the other syndromes, including erectile dysnfunction.  You get a 10 second description of what this new pill is for, then a 45 second warning of the side effects, which include:  death, suicidal thoughts, weight gain, musle and joint pain, etc. etc. ect.  Yet--the Federal Government still does not recognize an organic plant--with no long term side effects-while we're spending billions of dollars each year to prosecute and lock up the marijuana user.
> 
> Of course, all of this paranoia over something you could grow in your backyard that could wipe out half of your medicine cabinet.
> 
> *Our Federal GOVERNMENT at work*!!! _Did I forget to mention that I am a conservative--and active tea party member?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the smuck does "organic" have to do with anything?  Nightshade and hemlock are both "organic", but they'll still kill you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then, of course--you have a link to anyone--over the *decades* that has ended up in one of our emergency rooms because of an overdose of marijuana--or one that has died of some kind of lung disease--over long term use of it.
> 
> Then maybe--you'll show some credibility.
> 
> The facts are:  That our forefathers were fined if they did not grow marijuana plants--whose bi-products were used for rope and tents.  George Washinton's main crop was the marijuana plant--and our *Declaration Of Independence * is written on hemp paper.
Click to expand...


Are you sure you're responding to the right person? Organic doesn't mean healthy or good for you.


----------



## Father Time

bucs90 said:


> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG!!!!!
> 
> Factor in how many thugs are killed in drug deals gone bad, and you'll have the correct number of weed related deaths.
Click to expand...




So if someone was shot during a bank robbery I get to blame it on money?


----------



## Kalam

Avatar4321 said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does it matter? Why on earth would you want any of them?
> 
> 
> 
> Smoke a bunch of weed and you'll see why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why would i need to poison my body to find out that it's not healthy.
Click to expand...


It would keep you from typing nonsense like that, if nothing else.


----------



## eots

bucs90 said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there were someone/anyone that the Federal Government and the Pharmacutical industry could get a name on that actually died from long term use of marijuana--they would have a 24/7 advertisement against it.  You know it--I know it.
> 
> As far as you know someone that got "severely injured"--give me a freaking break.  Now go talk to your drunk neighbor that fell off of his porch and broke his leg---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance at it's best.
> 
> Sure, no one has died due to Overdose..  But being under the effect of it? Sure.. I've been there, saw it myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. And many have died during the trade of it in our streets when gone bad. People willing to kill over $50 worth of weed.
> 
> Now imagine it's legalized, corporate takeover of the manufacturing and selling of it, and that lucrative cash flow through illegal sales dries up. Then, those same folks willing to kill over a few dollars lose that income and must find some other means of making quick, cheap money. (See: Increased burglary, theft, fraud, etc).
Click to expand...



*those crimes are fueled by drug laws *

Drug-Friendly Netherlands to Close 8 Prisons -- Not Enough Crime

News by Marijuana Policy Project 
(May 26, 2009) in Society / Drug Law
By Bruce Mirken

For years prohibitionists, including our own Drug Enforcement Administration, have claimed &#8212; falsely &#8212; that the tolerant marijuana policies of the Netherlands have made that nation a nest of crime and drug abuse. They may have trouble wrapping their little brains around this:

The Dutch government is getting ready to close eight prisons because they don&#8217;t have enough criminals to fill them. Officials attribute the shortage of prisoners to a declining crime rate.

Just for fun, let&#8217;s compare the Netherlands to California. With a population of 16.6 million, the Dutch prison population is about 12,000. With its population of 36.7 million, California should have a bit more than double the Dutch prison population. California&#8217;s actual prison population is 171,000.

So, whose drug policies are keeping the streets safer?

Opposing Views: Drug-Friendly Netherlands to Close 8 Prisons -- Not Enough Crime


----------



## Father Time

Avatar4321 said:


> What does it matter? Why on earth would you want any of them?



So you have no interest in taking them, great, why should that matter in deciding whether others should be allowed to use them?


----------



## JBeukema

Rat in the Hat said:


> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do cigarettes have to do with this? Are you claiming they are also a perception altering substance??
Click to expand...


They're an addictive pychoactive drug


----------



## JBeukema

YoungLefty said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do cigarettes have to do with this? Are you claiming they are also a perception altering substance??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. But cigarettes do cause 435,000 deaths a year.
Click to expand...

Despite containing less carcinogens than tobacco, the manner in which marijuana is smoked (holding it in) results greater deposits of tar and carcinogenic chemicals)


----------



## JBeukema

manu1959 said:


> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get your facts straight and then maybe we can talk.  No one died from a marijuana related incident?  Really?  Link please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, since you seem to know what the number is, please provide. This is where I got my info: Annual Causes of Death in the United States | Drug War Facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i knew a dude that was stoned and fell to his death....i am sure weed is harmless....
Click to expand...



How many people fall asleep at the wheel and die every year?

Should we ban staying up late?


----------



## JBeukema

theDoctorisIn said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, no one died from a fire, slip and fall, bicycle, bear or any number of other things not included on your list.  Wonder how many people were high when they died in the car accident, were hunting with a firearm or used another drug in conjunction with marijuana?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem with statistics. Most of the time, people who are smoking pot are also doing other drugs, including alcohol. That's why the statistics here are almost completely meaningless. Except the obvious one - no person EVER has died of an overdose of marijuana.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that marijuana is significantly less dangerous a drug than alcohol or cigarettes - and the fact that it is illegal while the others are not is due not to facts about the drug, but other political maneuvering.
Click to expand...


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


paper industry


----------



## JBeukema

Rat in the Hat said:


> I have friends that claim they are addicted to chocolate. Is this also a perception altering substance?


phenylethylamine?

Give chocolate to someone on MAOIs...


----------



## JBeukema

Cecilie1200 said:


> Another thing to consider is that marijuana use, being illegal, isn't anything like as widespread as either alcohol and tobacco, so OF COURSE it doesn't have comparable statistics.


right....

take a look around your hometown, love


----------



## JBeukema

oreo said:


> Then, of course--you have a link to anyone--over the *decades* that has ended up in one of our emergency rooms because of an overdose of marijuana--or one that has died of some kind of lung disease--over long term use of it.



*facepalm*

The connection between marijuana (smoking) and cancer is well-established


----------



## JBeukema

theDoctorisIn said:


> I like my scotch.




Vodka > Scotch


----------



## JBeukema

oreo said:


> It's a well known fact that *nicotine* is the MOST addictive drug--out of any other narcotic--including  heroin-crack/cocain or meth.


source?


----------



## SpidermanTuba

saveliberty said:


> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get your facts straight and then maybe we can talk.  No one died from a marijuana related incident?  Really?  Link please.
Click to expand...


The LD-50 on marijuana is more than your body weight


----------



## JBeukema

Tom Clancy said:


> Sure, no one has died due to Overdose..  But being under the effect of it? Sure



I lit myself on fire once.

And that's why you don't use a lighter than can stay lit without your thumb being on it.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

manu1959 said:


> i knew a dude that was stoned and fell to his death....



Sounds like he died from falling, not from pot.



> i am sure weed is harmless....i mean how could a drug harm you....and holding smoke in your lungs...perfectly normal....


Man has smoked for tens of thousands of years. Its almost as normal as fucking your wife.


----------



## JBeukema

Avatar4321 said:


> What does it matter? Why on earth would you want any of them?




The same reason you want a cup of coffee or some peppermint tea- to enjoy the effects


----------



## SpidermanTuba

saveliberty said:


> Gee, no one died from a fire, slip and fall, bicycle, bear or any number of other things not included on your list.  Wonder how many people were high when they died in the car accident, were hunting with a firearm or used another drug in conjunction with marijuana?



I wonder how many people were listening to 'Freebird' when they died in a car accident ... be careful with the Skynyrd, they're dangerous!


----------



## JBeukema

SpidermanTuba said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get your facts straight and then maybe we can talk.  No one died from a marijuana related incident?  Really?  Link please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The LD-50 on marijuana is more than your body weight
Click to expand...

someone managed to establish an LD/50?

source?


----------



## JBeukema

Kalam said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does it matter? Why on earth would you want any of them?
> 
> 
> 
> Smoke a bunch of weed and you'll see why.
Click to expand...

Just don't drking at the same time, or you might not recall all the details


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Cecilie1200 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem with statistics. Most of the time, people who are smoking pot are also doing other drugs, including alcohol. That's why the statistics here are almost completely meaningless. Except the obvious one - no person EVER has died of an overdose of marijuana.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that marijuana is significantly less dangerous a drug than alcohol or cigarettes - and the fact that it is illegal while the others are not is due not to facts about the drug, but other political maneuvering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree 100%.  In fact, the biggest lobbyist in Washington DC against the use of medical marijuana is in fact, the pharmacutical industry in this country--that has bought and paid for decades of propoganda against a completely organic plant.
> 
> This while they're PUSHING on us all their new drugs which is the primary reason why our medical insurance rates have gone through the roof.  New drugs for restless leg syndrome, and all of the other syndromes, including erectile dysnfunction.  You get a 10 second description of what this new pill is for, then a 45 second warning of the side effects, which include:  death, suicidal thoughts, weight gain, musle and joint pain, etc. etc. ect.  Yet--the Federal Government still does not recognize an organic plant--with no long term side effects-while we're spending billions of dollars each year to prosecute and lock up the marijuana user.
> 
> Of course, all of this paranoia over something you could grow in your backyard that could wipe out half of your medicine cabinet.
> 
> *Our Federal GOVERNMENT at work*!!! _Did I forget to mention that I am a conservative--and active tea party member?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the smuck does "organic" have to do with anything?  Nightshade and hemlock are both "organic", but they'll still kill you.
Click to expand...




They're organic plants with poison in them. Do you know what poison is?


----------



## JBeukema

Foxfyre said:


> All three are addictive




lol


science fail


THC is not physically addictive. Period. Repeated clinical studies have established that fact.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Rat in the Hat said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice qualifier. Must explain why i get falling down drunk on 2 shots, but can smoke 3 cartons and still drive half a country away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be why I put the qualifier there. Of course it's not the same. I never claimed that it was. But medically, yes nicotine is a mood-altering drug.
> 
> 
> 2 shots? You're a lightweight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only drink at weddings & funerals. And then, only when toasting.
Click to expand...



What do you do?


----------



## SpidermanTuba

The Rabbi said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the smuck does "organic" have to do with anything?  Nightshade and hemlock are both "organic", but they'll still kill you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then, of course--you have a link to anyone--over the *decades* that has ended up in one of our emergency rooms because of an overdose of marijuana--or one that has died of some kind of lung disease--over long term use of it.
> 
> Then maybe--you'll show some credibility.
> 
> The facts are:  That our forefathers were fined if they did not grow marijuana plants--whose bi-products were used for rope and tents.  George Washinton's main crop was the marijuana plant--and our declaration of independence is written on hemp paper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> This took all of 15 seconds.  The internet is great.
> Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction -- As Much As 20 Years Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers
Click to expand...




So you recommend brownies then?


----------



## SpidermanTuba

The Rabbi said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the smuck does "organic" have to do with anything?  Nightshade and hemlock are both "organic", but they'll still kill you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then, of course--you have a link to anyone--over the *decades* that has ended up in one of our emergency rooms because of an overdose of marijuana--or one that has died of some kind of lung disease--over long term use of it.
> 
> Then maybe--you'll show some credibility.
> 
> The facts are:  That our forefathers were fined if they did not grow marijuana plants--whose bi-products were used for rope and tents.  George Washinton's main crop was the marijuana plant--and our declaration of independence is written on hemp paper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> This took all of 15 seconds.  The internet is great.
> Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction -- As Much As 20 Years Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers
Click to expand...




That study was conducted with a sample of 10 patients. This is not a misprint.


> Bullous lung disease due to marijuana
> 
> HII SW, TAM JDC, THOMPSON BR, NAUGHTON MT. Respirology 2008; 13: 122-127 Background and objective:&#8195;
> 
> In contrast to the well-described effects of tobacco smoking upon pulmonary emphysema, with &#8764;15% of smokers being affected at the age of 65&#8201;years, the effects of marijuana smoking are rarely reported and poorly understood. Methods:&#8195;
> 
> *We report a series of 10 patients* (mean age 41&#8201;±&#8201;9&#8201;years, eight male, two female), who presented over a period of 12&#8201;months to our respiratory unit with new respiratory symptoms, and who admitted to regular chronic marijuana smoking (>1&#8201;year continuously). Symptoms on presentation were dyspnoea (n&#8201;=&#8201;4), pneumothorax (n&#8201;=&#8201;4) and chest infection (n&#8201;=&#8201;2). Results:&#8195;


----------



## Kalam

SpidermanTuba said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then, of course--you have a link to anyone--over the *decades* that has ended up in one of our emergency rooms because of an overdose of marijuana--or one that has died of some kind of lung disease--over long term use of it.
> 
> Then maybe--you'll show some credibility.
> 
> The facts are:  That our forefathers were fined if they did not grow marijuana plants--whose bi-products were used for rope and tents.  George Washinton's main crop was the marijuana plant--and our declaration of independence is written on hemp paper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> This took all of 15 seconds.  The internet is great.
> Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction -- As Much As 20 Years Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you recommend brownies then?
Click to expand...


Or a vape. From the same website lol:
Marijuana Vaporizer Provides Same Level Of THC, Fewer Toxins, Study Shows


----------



## SpidermanTuba

saveliberty said:


> If you want to get down to "facts" on this subject, none of the three things mentioned are any good for you the way MOST people actually use them.  To see them go on and on about the burden they bear from the laws is quite immature and selfish as near as I can see.



Actually most people who smoke pot only do it a few times a month. I fail to see how that can be harmful.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

saveliberty said:


> If you want to get down to "facts" on this subject, none of the three things mentioned are any good for you the way MOST people actually use them. * To see them go on and on about the burden they bear from the laws is quite immature and selfish as near as I can see.*



Your handle is 'saveliberty' - what a fucking hypocrite you are. What you mean is "save MY liberty and FUCK everyone else's"


----------



## Oscar Wao

saveliberty said:


> If you want to get down to "facts" on this subject, none of the three things mentioned are any good for you the way MOST people actually use them. To see them go on and on about the burden they bear from the laws is quite immature and selfish as near as I can see.


Sometimes selfishness isn't a vice.


----------



## Oscar Wao

SpidermanTuba said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to get down to "facts" on this subject, none of the three things mentioned are any good for you the way MOST people actually use them. *To see them go on and on about the burden they bear from the laws is quite immature and selfish as near as I can see.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your handle is 'saveliberty' - what a fucking hypocrite you are. What you mean is "save MY liberty and FUCK everyone else's"
Click to expand...

Such is the credo of the fundy.


----------



## Father Time

saveliberty said:


> If you want to get down to "facts" on this subject, none of the three things mentioned are any good for you the way MOST people actually use them.  To see them go on and on about the burden they bear from the laws is quite immature and selfish as near as I can see.



Yes how dare they want to choose whether to put things into their own body, what do those people think they deserve liberty or something?


----------



## theDoctorisIn

JBeukema said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, no one died from a fire, slip and fall, bicycle, bear or any number of other things not included on your list.  Wonder how many people were high when they died in the car accident, were hunting with a firearm or used another drug in conjunction with marijuana?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem with statistics. Most of the time, people who are smoking pot are also doing other drugs, including alcohol. That's why the statistics here are almost completely meaningless. Except the obvious one - no person EVER has died of an overdose of marijuana.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that marijuana is significantly less dangerous a drug than alcohol or cigarettes - and the fact that it is illegal while the others are not is due not to facts about the drug, but other political maneuvering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> 
> 
> paper industry
Click to expand...


And Standard Oil.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

JBeukema said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like my scotch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vodka > Scotch
Click to expand...


As I said, to each their own.



But you can keep your rubbing-alcohol-with-a-fancy-label, I'll keep my 21 year old single malt.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

saveliberty said:


> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get your facts straight and then maybe we can talk.  *No one died from a marijuana related incident?*  Really?  Link please.
Click to expand...

You know *differently* (...you know...besides expecting someone to _prove_ a negative...  )*??* 

Link please.​


----------



## Mr. Shaman

manu1959 said:


> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get your facts straight and then maybe we can talk.  No one died from a marijuana related incident?  Really?  Link please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, since you seem to know what the number is, please provide. This is where I got my info: Annual Causes of Death in the United States | Drug War Facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i knew a dude that was stoned and fell to his death....i am sure weed is harmless....i mean how could a drug harm you....
Click to expand...

I'm *pretty*-certain those _sudden-stops_ have a _little_-more to do with Death, than any Pot-smoking.

​


----------



## Mr. Shaman

Rat in the Hat said:


> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do cigarettes have to do with this? Are you claiming they are also a perception altering substance??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. But cigarettes do cause 435,000 deaths a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But how many people die from "cigarette related incidents"??
Click to expand...

*New* to the subject, are you?

​


> "Each year, a staggering 440,000 people die in the US from tobacco use. Nearly 1 of every 5 deaths is related to smoking. *Cigarettes kill more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined.*"


----------



## Mr. Shaman

gautama said:


> The fact that you'd place BEER in the same category as cigarettes & marijuana explains why you are a "young lefty"...... or IOW, a fool.


You *D.A.R.E.*-_graduates_  are tooooooooooooooo amusing.​


----------



## Mr. Shaman

saveliberty said:


> Gee, no one died from a fire, slip and fall, bicycle, bear or any number of other things not included on your list.  Wonder how many people were high when they died in the car accident, were hunting with a firearm or used another drug in conjunction with marijuana?


Zero.....unless, of course, you can *prove* otherwise.​


> "There *is* no compelling evidence...."​


----------



## California Girl

It seems to me that lots of people want to justify their addiction to marijuana by saying it's harmless, or less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes. Simply put, lie to yourselves if you must - take whatever drug you feel inclined to.... but.... don't affect me and mine. I'm sick and tired of my family being impacted by the selfish stupidity of others. You want to affect your brain, body and kill yourselves. Absolutely fine and dandy. Just don't kill someone else while your doing it. Thanks.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

theDoctorisIn said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, no one died from a fire, slip and fall, bicycle, bear or any number of other things not included on your list.  Wonder how many people were high when they died in the car accident, were hunting with a firearm or used another drug in conjunction with marijuana?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact of the matter is that marijuana is significantly less dangerous a drug than alcohol or cigarettes - *and the fact that it is illegal while the others are not is due not to facts about the drug, but other political maneuvering.*
Click to expand...

*i.e.* *bu$ine$$* (...and, garden-variety *racism*, an ol' *"conservative"*-fave)....as-usual.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvUgJEhQ5cY]YouTube - Grass, A Marijuana History - Narrated by Woody Harrelson#Part1#[/ame]​


----------



## Mr. Shaman

oreo said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, no one died from a fire, slip and fall, bicycle, bear or any number of other things not included on your list.  Wonder how many people were high when they died in the car accident, were hunting with a firearm or used another drug in conjunction with marijuana?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem with statistics. Most of the time, people who are smoking pot are also doing other drugs, including alcohol. That's why the statistics here are almost completely meaningless. Except the obvious one - no person EVER has died of an overdose of marijuana.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that marijuana is significantly less dangerous a drug than alcohol or cigarettes - and the fact that it is illegal while the others are not is due not to facts about the drug, but other political maneuvering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree 100%.  In fact, the number 1 lobbyist in Washington DC against the use of medical marijuana is in fact, the pharmacutical industry in this country--that has bought and paid for decades of propoganda against a completely organic plant.
Click to expand...

*BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Douger

Beer and cigz will kill you.
MJ and LSD will overcome the lies and brainwashing.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

Rat in the Hat said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do cigarettes have to do with this? Are you claiming they are also a perception altering substance??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are.
> 
> Subtly, yes. But they do - if they didn't, why would someone get addicted to cigarettes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have friends that claim they are addicted to chocolate. Is this also a perception altering substance?
Click to expand...

Ya' gotta *get-out*, more......








The *perfect*-book for the half-witted/*Just-Say-No!* Nancy-_disciple_.​


----------



## Mr. Shaman

Cecilie1200 said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, no one died from a fire, slip and fall, bicycle, bear or any number of other things not included on your list.  Wonder how many people were high when they died in the car accident, were hunting with a firearm or used another drug in conjunction with marijuana?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem with statistics. Most of the time, people who are smoking pot are also doing other drugs, including alcohol. That's why the statistics here are almost completely meaningless. Except the obvious one - no person EVER has died of an overdose of marijuana.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that marijuana is significantly less dangerous a drug than alcohol or cigarettes - and the fact that it is illegal while the others are not is due not to facts about the drug, but other political maneuvering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also necessary to consider that marijuana-related illnesses and incidents (such as traffic accidents) are usually just lumped into the stats for other substances.  The stats for the health effects of tobacco, for example, are derived from statistics on a variety of health problems linked to tobacco, whether the sufferer actually smoked or not.  This means that if long-term marijuana smoking DID cause lung cancer and emphysemia, we'd never know because it would just be labeled a "smoking-related death" and left at that.
> 
> Likewise, *people DO get in traffic accidents under the influence of marijuana for the same reasons they do with alcohol:  both of them screw with your reaction time and judgement ability.*
Click to expand...




> "There is *no compelling evidence*....."​


.....But, go ahead....let's *see* your's!!

​


----------



## Mr. Shaman

Cecilie1200 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem with statistics. Most of the time, people who are smoking pot are also doing other drugs, including alcohol. That's why the statistics here are almost completely meaningless. Except the obvious one - no person EVER has died of an overdose of marijuana.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that marijuana is significantly less dangerous a drug than alcohol or cigarettes - and the fact that it is illegal while the others are not is due not to facts about the drug, but other political maneuvering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree 100%.  In fact, the biggest lobbyist in Washington DC against the use of medical marijuana is in fact, the pharmacutical industry in this country--that has bought and paid for decades of propoganda against a completely organic plant.
> 
> This while they're PUSHING on us all their new drugs which is the primary reason why our medical insurance rates have gone through the roof.  New drugs for restless leg syndrome, and all of the other syndromes, including erectile dysnfunction.  You get a 10 second description of what this new pill is for, then a 45 second warning of the side effects, which include:  death, suicidal thoughts, weight gain, musle and joint pain, etc. etc. ect.  Yet--the Federal Government still does not recognize an organic plant--with no long term side effects-while we're spending billions of dollars each year to prosecute and lock up the marijuana user.
> 
> Of course, all of this paranoia over something you could grow in your backyard that could wipe out half of your medicine cabinet.
> 
> *Our Federal GOVERNMENT at work*!!! _Did I forget to mention that I am a conservative--and active tea party member?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the smuck does "organic" have to do with anything?  Nightshade and hemlock are both "organic", but they'll still kill you.
Click to expand...

You surely-do ask a lotta questions.

Ya' ever do *your OWN research**?????*

​


----------



## Mr. Shaman

oreo said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are.
> 
> Subtly, yes. But they do - if they didn't, why would someone get addicted to cigarettes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have friends that claim they are addicted to chocolate. Is this also a perception altering substance?
> 
> If cigarettes are in the same rank as marijuana & alcohol, can you provide me with the numbers for drivers convicted of driving under the influence of tobacco???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right--prohibition has never worked in this country.  We witnessed that in the 1930's.  Americans were making bath tub liquor.  The Government realised that it was fruitless to pursue and incarcerate people who wanted to drink alcohol--and then decided to regulate it.  Meaning tax it.
Click to expand...

....*AND*, apply the *same* rules (for Pot) as beer & wine; *you can grow your own - No Sales!* 

(That should take-care o' the ol' *criminal-elements, profiting from sales* _justification_ for Prohibition).​


----------



## johnrocks

I don't think marijuana is safe; holding smoke in your lungs can't be healthy; but it's called freedom and personal responsibility, too many can't wrap their heads around that.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

The Rabbi said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the smuck does "organic" have to do with anything?  Nightshade and hemlock are both "organic", but they'll still kill you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then, of course--you have a link to anyone--over the *decades* that has ended up in one of our emergency rooms because of an overdose of marijuana--or one that has died of some kind of lung disease--over long term use of it.
> 
> Then maybe--you'll show some credibility.
> 
> The facts are:  That our forefathers were fined if they did not grow marijuana plants--whose bi-products were used for rope and tents.  George Washinton's main crop was the marijuana plant--and our declaration of independence is written on hemp paper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> This took all of 15 seconds.  The internet is great.
> Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction -- As Much As 20 Years Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers
Click to expand...


*Keep searchin'*, *Skippy!!!*​


----------



## Mr. Shaman

saveliberty said:


> If you want to get down to "facts" on this subject, none of the three things mentioned are any good for you the way MOST people actually use them.


Agreed!!

Even Willy's moved-on to using a Vaporizer.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU-Prh3F0jQ]YouTube - WILLIE NELSON SMOKED WEED BEFORE HIS INTERVIEW WITH LARRY KING!!![/ame]
*
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iqhPUfODNU[/ame]​


----------



## Mr. Shaman

Tom Clancy said:


> /sigh...
> 
> 
> Even as a Monthly/Social Weed smoker it's ridiculous to say there are *0* deaths caused by Weed..
> 
> I know 1 person who has actually gotten severely injured under the use of Pot..  Not to mention the people i know telling me stories about people who have died under the use.


There are *unlimited* sources for bullshit....if you look long-and-hard-enough.

*FAUX Noise* would be a good start.​


----------



## The Rabbi

SpidermanTuba said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then, of course--you have a link to anyone--over the *decades* that has ended up in one of our emergency rooms because of an overdose of marijuana--or one that has died of some kind of lung disease--over long term use of it.
> 
> Then maybe--you'll show some credibility.
> 
> The facts are:  That our forefathers were fined if they did not grow marijuana plants--whose bi-products were used for rope and tents.  George Washinton's main crop was the marijuana plant--and our declaration of independence is written on hemp paper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> This took all of 15 seconds.  The internet is great.
> Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction -- As Much As 20 Years Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That study was conducted with a sample of 10 patients. This is not a misprint.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullous lung disease due to marijuana
> 
> HII SW, TAM JDC, THOMPSON BR, NAUGHTON MT. Respirology 2008; 13: 122-127 Background and objective:&#8195;
> 
> In contrast to the well-described effects of tobacco smoking upon pulmonary emphysema, with &#8764;15% of smokers being affected at the age of 65&#8201;years, the effects of marijuana smoking are rarely reported and poorly understood. Methods:&#8195;
> 
> *We report a series of 10 patients* (mean age 41&#8201;±&#8201;9&#8201;years, eight male, two female), who presented over a period of 12&#8201;months to our respiratory unit with new respiratory symptoms, and who admitted to regular chronic marijuana smoking (>1&#8201;year continuously). Symptoms on presentation were dyspnoea (n&#8201;=&#8201;4), pneumothorax (n&#8201;=&#8201;4) and chest infection (n&#8201;=&#8201;2). Results:&#8195;
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Would suck to be one of them.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

oreo said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then, of course--you have a link to anyone--over the *decades* that has ended up in one of our emergency rooms because of an overdose of marijuana--or one that has died of some kind of lung disease--over long term use of it.
> 
> Then maybe--you'll show some credibility.
> 
> The facts are:  That our forefathers were fined if they did not grow marijuana plants--whose bi-products were used for rope and tents.  George Washinton's main crop was the marijuana plant--and our declaration of independence is written on hemp paper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> This took all of 15 seconds.  The internet is great.
> Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction -- As Much As 20 Years Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah--I figured you would link up to another site--that was paid for by big pharmacutical--*congrats.* *Kind of like looking at global warming stats--LOL.*
> 
> You still have not brought up the *NAME* of one single individual that has ended up in the emergency room--and or that has actually *DIED* of long term use of marijuana.
Click to expand...

_Factoids_, like that, are usually covered with "Everybody knows....".

​


----------



## The Rabbi

oreo said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then, of course--you have a link to anyone--over the *decades* that has ended up in one of our emergency rooms because of an overdose of marijuana--or one that has died of some kind of lung disease--over long term use of it.
> 
> Then maybe--you'll show some credibility.
> 
> The facts are:  That our forefathers were fined if they did not grow marijuana plants--whose bi-products were used for rope and tents.  George Washinton's main crop was the marijuana plant--and our declaration of independence is written on hemp paper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> This took all of 15 seconds.  The internet is great.
> Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction -- As Much As 20 Years Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah--I figured you would link up to another site--that was paid for by big pharmacutical--*congrats.* *Kind of like looking at global warming stats--LOL.*
> 
> You still have not brought up the *NAME* of one single individual that has ended up in the emergency room--and or that has actually *DIED* of long term use of marijuana.
> 
> Just to let you know people have been smoking marijuana for *centuries.*
Click to expand...


People have been smoking tobacco for centuries too.

So a study that "only" has 10 people is not credible.  But unless I can find the name of ONE person who died the argument isn't credible either??
How much have you been smoking, junior?


----------



## Mr. Shaman

oreo said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a well known fact that *nicotine* is the MOST addictive drug--out of any other narcotic--including  heroin, crack/cocain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But does it cause perception alteration to the point where you can cause harm to others like alcohol and marijuana can?? That was the point of this thread, wasn't it??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer to your question:
> 
> Ask any cop:  Do you have more problems with alcohol related crime or marijuana users?
> 
> I think you already know the answer to this.
Click to expand...

Even a lot o' *COPS* (finally) "get it".

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icoYTCIhXGY]YouTube - Cops Say Legalize Drugs![/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0hV2jRAduc&feature=related]YouTube - Former Fed Tells CNN Why Drugs Must Be Legalized[/ame]​


----------



## Mr. Shaman

Tom Clancy said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> /sigh...
> 
> 
> Even as a Monthly/Social Weed smoker it's ridiculous to say there are *0* deaths caused by Weed..
> 
> I know 1 person who has actually gotten severely injured under the use of Pot..  Not to mention the people i know telling me stories about people who have died under the use.
> 
> Thanks for playing the Ignorant game, come back next week for more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there were someone/anyone that the Federal Government and the Pharmacutical industry could get a name on that actually died from long term use of marijuana--they would have a 24/7 advertisement against it.  You know it--I know it.
> 
> As far as you know someone that got "severely injured"--give me a freaking break.  Now go talk to your drunk neighbor that fell off of his porch and broke his leg---
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance at it's best.
> 
> Sure, no one has died due to Overdose..  But being under the effect of it? Sure.. I've been there, saw it myself.
Click to expand...


So you've decided not to participate.

No prob.

Ya' got any problem with lettin' everyone-*else* makin' that decision, for *them*selves?​


----------



## Mr. Shaman

bucs90 said:


> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG!!!!!
> 
> Factor in how many thugs are killed in drug deals gone bad, and you'll have the correct number of weed related deaths.
Click to expand...

....Yeah....*related to PROHIBITION**!!*

​


----------



## Mr. Shaman

bucs90 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> But does it cause perception alteration to the point where you can cause harm to others like alcohol and marijuana can?? That was the point of this thread, wasn't it??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to your question:
> 
> Ask any cop:  Do you have more problems with alcohol related crime or marijuana users?
> 
> I think you already know the answer to this.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was one for 8 years in Atlanta. I'll answer it.
> 
> The total number of problems from alcohol users and weed users? About the same. True, 99% of DUI's are from alcohol. Seldom if ever from weed. Sometimes heroin, crack, prescrips, etc. DUI is an alcohol problem, no doubt.
> 
> But, you said "problems", not DUI's. Problems stemming from weed use include unemployment, car break ins, larceny, burglary, shoplifting, etc. Basically stealing shit to get money because they can't keep a job.
> 
> So, I basically think weed makes you more of whatever you already are. Lazy, smart, criminal, theif, artist, whatever.
Click to expand...

Lemme guess....you _taught_ *D.A.R.E.-classes*, toohttp://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/#motivation, huh??

​


----------



## Mr. Shaman

Foxfyre said:


> Alcohol leaves the system generally in 24 hours or less depending on quanity consumed.  Nicotine requires up to seven days to clear the system and marijuana up to four weeks depending on how much is consumed.


...Only because of *the physical-properties of THC*; not water-soluable.....much *un*like heroin & stimulants.​


----------



## editec

saveliberty said:


> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get your facts straight and then maybe we can talk. No one died from a marijuana related incident? Really? Link please.
Click to expand...

 
Can you link us to any site that documents death by marijuana?

His assertion was based on a lack of evidence to the contrary.

But if you have evidence that refutes his, I'd like to see it, please.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

eots said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do cigarettes have to do with this? Are you claiming they are also a perception altering substance??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol of course they are
> 
> 
> nicotine's mood-altering effects are different by report: in particular it is both a stimulant and a relaxant.
Click to expand...

....Much like alcohol.

Initially, it's a stimulant (I always figured your body was workin' to eliminate it), and, then.....a depressant (when your body says...."Aw, *screw* it*!* I've had enough.").​


----------



## Wry Catcher

Some thoughts on the legalization of marijuana:
1.  There exists an untapped black market of marijuana in the billions of dollars
2.  Enforcement of laws against the possession and use of marijuana are costly
3. As was pointed out above, people under the influence of MJ are rarely violent, the same is not true of those under the influence of alcohol.
4.  MJ is a schedule I drug, therefore it has (per the definition of Schedule I) no medical value; because MJ is a schedule I drug clinical trials have been few and far between.
5.  Those who *really* support states rights, support the reclassification of MJ to the same status as alcohol and nicotine...regulated by the state.
6.  Wiith the ability to tax, federal and state government could generate substantial revenue if MJ were reclassified.
7.  All in all the war on drugs is an abject failure.  
8.  As noted above, MJ is not addictive, though it is habit forming.  Alcohol and nicotine are addictive.
9.   The alcohol and big pharma lobby is opposed to removing MJ from schedule I.
And, 10, as usual ignorance & ideology limit an intelligent debate on the issue.


----------



## editec

The difference between alcohol tobacco and marijuana?

Serious alcohol and tobacco habits are more expensive that being a stoner, for one thing.

And this despite the fact that majiuna is illegal and tobacco and alcohol are not.

So for those of you stoners who think that legalization and taxation are a good thing?

Consider it carefully.

It's a_ really_ good thing if stoners are allowed to grow their own _without taxation._


----------



## Mr. Shaman

father time said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> younglefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in america but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrong!!!!!
> 
> Factor in how many thugs are killed in drug deals gone bad, and you'll have the correct number of weed related deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if someone was shot during a bank robbery i get to blame it on money?
Click to expand...

*bingo!!!!!!!!!!*​


----------



## Mr. Shaman

JBeukema said:


> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do cigarettes have to do with this? Are you claiming they are also a perception altering substance??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. But cigarettes do cause 435,000 deaths a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Despite containing less carcinogens than tobacco, the manner in which marijuana is smoked (holding it in) results greater deposits of tar and carcinogenic chemicals)
Click to expand...

Lemme guess.....that's what *They say*....., right?

​


----------



## Wry Catcher

And, 10, as usual ignorance & ideology limit an intelligent debate on the issue.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

JBeukema said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then, of course--you have a link to anyone--over the *decades* that has ended up in one of our emergency rooms because of an overdose of marijuana--or one that has died of some kind of lung disease--over long term use of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *facepalm*
> 
> The connection between marijuana (smoking) and cancer is well-established
Click to expand...

....Maybe by *FAUX Noise*.....but, they lie about everything.

​


----------



## The Rabbi

editec said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get your facts straight and then maybe we can talk. No one died from a marijuana related incident? Really? Link please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you link us to any site that documents death by marijuana?
> 
> His assertion was based on a lack of evidence to the contrary.
> 
> But if you have evidence that refutes his, I'd like to see it, please.
Click to expand...


DUI Library: Fatalities Accidents - Study on DUI and Accidents | DUI.com


----------



## Mr. Shaman

SpidermanTuba said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, no one died from a fire, slip and fall, bicycle, bear or any number of other things not included on your list.  Wonder how many people were high when they died in the car accident, were hunting with a firearm or used another drug in conjunction with marijuana?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how many people were listening to 'Freebird' when they died in a car accident ... be careful with the Skynyrd, they're dangerous!
Click to expand...

....Or, *Bloodrock!!!!*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KExNxttleaI]YouTube - Bloodrock - Bloodrock 2 - 07 - D.O.A.[/ame]

​


----------



## Wry Catcher

In my never ending effort to alleviate ignorance, I provide the following information:

The Federal Controlled Substance Schedule





Schedule I

The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse and has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.  There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision. 



&#8226; Examples of Schedule I substances include heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana, and methaqualone. 



Schedule II

The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse and has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.  Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. 



&#8226; Examples of Schedule II substances include morphine, phencyclidine (PCP), cocaine, methadone, and methamphetamine. 



Schedule III

The drug or other substance has less potential for abuse than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II and has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.  Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence. 



&#8226; Anabolic steroids, codeine and hydrocodone with aspirin or Tylenol ®, and some barbiturates are examples of Schedule III substances. 



Schedule IV

The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in Schedule III and has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.  Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in Schedule III. 



&#8226; Examples of drugs included in schedule IV are Darvon®, Talwin®, Equanil®, Valium®, and Xanax®. 



Schedule V

The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in Schedule IV and has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.  Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in Schedule IV. 



&#8226; Cough medicines with codeine are examples of Schedule V drugs.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

SpidermanTuba said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be why I put the qualifier there. Of course it's not the same. I never claimed that it was. But medically, yes nicotine is a mood-altering drug.
> 
> 
> 2 shots? You're a lightweight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only drink at weddings & funerals. And then, only when toasting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you do?
Click to expand...

Die o' boredom......

​


----------



## geauxtohell

Rat in the Hat said:


> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do cigarettes have to do with this? Are you claiming they are also a perception altering substance??
Click to expand...


Of course they are.  You don't see many people clamoring for Nicotine-less smokes, do you?   

Here's how I see the difference:

Alcohol is addictive to the point that addicts are in danger of dying during withdrawal.  It impairs the senses and judgment and kills brains cells.  It also destroys the liver.  You can overdose on alcohol.  

Cigarettes are highly addictive and highly carcinogenic to virtually every tissue in the body.  Even if you avoid cancer, they destroy lung tissue and your odds of getting COPD are high, which is a progressively fatal condition that will have you in the hospital several times a year for COPD exacerbation until it contributes to your death in some manner or the other.

Pot is not physiologically addictive, impairs the senses and alters judgment. You can't overdose on it, but the long term effects on the body are not well studied/known.  There is some evidence to suggest it might trigger schizophrenia in persons who are habitual users who are predispositioned to it. 

If alcohol and cigs are going to be legal, I don't see why Pot is illegal.  I think California will legalize it for recreational use and pending on how that turns out other states will follow suit a year or two later.


----------



## geauxtohell

gautama said:


> The fact that you'd place BEER in the same category as cigarettes & marijuana explains why you are a "young lefty"...... or IOW, a fool.



You are right.  The societal harms caused by alcohol dwarf MJ and cigs.  Also, as I noted, withdrawal from alcohol kills people.  That is not the case with the other two.


----------



## geauxtohell

theDoctorisIn said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do cigarettes have to do with this? Are you claiming they are also a perception altering substance??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are.
> 
> Subtly, yes. But they do - if they didn't, why would someone get addicted to cigarettes?
Click to expand...


There is a reason the sympathetic receptor class in the PNS are referred to as "nicotinic receptors".


----------



## Mr. Shaman

California Girl said:


> It seems to me that lots of people want to justify their addiction to marijuana......


*BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!!!!!!!!!!*

(Sorry. I forgot to turn-off my Bimbo-firewall.)

*Addiction??!!!!*

​


----------



## editec

Pot is essantially harmless except for the negative effects on the lungs.

It is not addictive, but it can be habit forming.

Unlike alcohol and nicotine marijuana has no known toxicity level.


----------



## geauxtohell

Rat in the Hat said:


> Nice qualifier. Must explain why i get falling down drunk on 2 shots,



Because you are a lightweight.



> but can smoke 3 cartons and still drive half a country away.



Because the active component in alcohol and cigs bind different neuro-receptors to cause different effects.  The point is, they still bind receptors and alter the body from the norm.


----------



## geauxtohell

Tom Clancy said:


> /sigh...
> 
> 
> Even as a Monthly/Social Weed smoker it's ridiculous to say there are *0* deaths caused by Weed..
> 
> I know 1 person who has actually gotten severely injured under the use of Pot..  Not to mention the people i know telling me stories about people who have died under the use.
> 
> Thanks for playing the Ignorant game, come back next week for more.



If you want to go into ROTC, you need to stop smoking pot.  You are going to be asked about your drug use for the past six years on your security clearance papers.


----------



## amrchaos

To younglefty

The reason Marijuana is illegal is because it is too enjoyable!

If you take too much pleasure from it, it must be illegal.  

This includes sex(only time it is not sinful is if you are trying to produce a child.  Not because you and your partner are horny that is called lust and should be avoided at all costs!), gambling, and other types of pleasures that makes living worthwhile.

Get with the program, younglefty!  Beome a youngconservative and shun your sinful ways! Oh--I meant illegal ways!


----------



## geauxtohell

SpidermanTuba said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then, of course--you have a link to anyone--over the *decades* that has ended up in one of our emergency rooms because of an overdose of marijuana--or one that has died of some kind of lung disease--over long term use of it.
> 
> Then maybe--you'll show some credibility.
> 
> The facts are:  That our forefathers were fined if they did not grow marijuana plants--whose bi-products were used for rope and tents.  George Washinton's main crop was the marijuana plant--and our declaration of independence is written on hemp paper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> This took all of 15 seconds.  The internet is great.
> Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction -- As Much As 20 Years Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That study was conducted with a sample of 10 patients. This is not a misprint.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullous lung disease due to marijuana
> 
> HII SW, TAM JDC, THOMPSON BR, NAUGHTON MT. Respirology 2008; 13: 122-127 Background and objective:&#8195;
> 
> In contrast to the well-described effects of tobacco smoking upon pulmonary emphysema, with &#8764;15% of smokers being affected at the age of 65&#8201;years, the effects of marijuana smoking are rarely reported and poorly understood. Methods:&#8195;
> 
> *We report a series of 10 patients* (mean age 41&#8201;±&#8201;9&#8201;years, eight male, two female), who presented over a period of 12&#8201;months to our respiratory unit with new respiratory symptoms, and who admitted to regular chronic marijuana smoking (>1&#8201;year continuously). Symptoms on presentation were dyspnoea (n&#8201;=&#8201;4), pneumothorax (n&#8201;=&#8201;4) and chest infection (n&#8201;=&#8201;2). Results:&#8195;
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Good catch.  I was hoping someone would provide the methodology.  I was too lazy to hunt it down myself.  When n=10, the power of the study is so absurdly low that it's hard to take it seriously.  I wonder what their P value and confidence intervals were?  

Also, 4 of them had a pneumothorax but only 2 had a chest infection?

My take is that MJ has simply not been well studied enough to make definitive statements, but I don't think anyone can deny their is a link to cancer.


----------



## saveliberty

The federal government wants to regulate your sugar and salt intake.  Marijuana is certainly a reasonable substance to regulate by that standard.  Your weak arguments about marijuana not killing you it was the fall or the car crash is laughable.  Sort of like saying the heart attack killed you, not the excess weigh, smoking, lack of exercise and so on.  They are called contributing factors folks.

The premise of the thread is false.  It is also interesting to see how unmellow you stoners are when it comes to discussing this issue.  It is illegal for good reason.  Take your energy and passion using it to end cigarette use and limit alcohol use.  That would be far more helpful and productive.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

geauxtohell said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do cigarettes have to do with this? Are you claiming they are also a perception altering substance??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they are.  You don't see many people clamoring for Nicotine-less smokes, do you?
> 
> Here's how I see the difference:
> 
> Alcohol is addictive to the point that addicts are in danger of dying during withdrawal.  It impairs the senses and judgment and kills brains cells.  It also destroys the liver.  You can overdose on alcohol.
> 
> Cigarettes are highly addictive and highly carcinogenic to virtually every tissue in the body.  Even if you avoid cancer, they destroy lung tissue and your odds of getting COPD are high, which is a progressively fatal condition that will have you in the hospital several times a year for COPD exacerbation until it contributes to your death in some manner or the other.
> 
> Pot is not physiologically addictive, impairs the senses and alters judgment. You can't overdose on it, but the long term effects on the body are not well studied/known.  *There is some evidence to suggest it might trigger schizophrenia in persons who are habitual users who are predispositioned to it.*
Click to expand...

That's *some bullshit-study* that (typically) shows-up at the BBC-website.

​


----------



## Care4all

the govt does not have the constitutional powers to make alcohol, cigarettes or marijuana illegal....what they have done, is unconstitutional....they used back door methods to make marijuana illegal....they said it was still legal, but you had to buy a tax stamp to distribute it, then when doctors applied for the tax stamp to prescribe it, the gvt had no tax stamps to purchase....they never printed any....they killed marijuana's legality, over night.

the companies like cocacola and Hearst Paper and the alcohol industry lobbied hard to ban it because marijuana was competition to them....hemp paper, what the original bible text was printed on, was huge competition for Hearst, who owned newspapers and magazines and had just bought huge tracks of forest and a paper company....

On top of this, there was racism....the religious said that marijuana made mexican men rape white women....

HEMP, marijuana, was required BY LAW for every plantation in the south to grow...the colonies needed the rope made from it, to operate their new vessels they were building....Jefferson owned several Hemp plantations.

Please watch the History Channel's, "History of illegal Drugs" documentary.


----------



## geauxtohell

California Girl said:


> It seems to me that lots of people want to justify their addiction to marijuana by saying it's harmless, or less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes. Simply put, lie to yourselves if you must - take whatever drug you feel inclined to.... but.... don't affect me and mine. I'm sick and tired of my family being impacted by the selfish stupidity of others. You want to affect your brain, body and kill yourselves. Absolutely fine and dandy. Just don't kill someone else while your doing it. Thanks.



Since your drug of choice is alcohol how are you any better?  Have you ever driven after drinking any alcohol?  Then you have put society in as much danger, if not more, than a pot smoker.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

saveliberty said:


> The premise of the thread is false.  It is also interesting to see how unmellow you stoners are when it comes to discussing this issue.  *It is illegal for good reason.*


....But, you _forgot_ what that good-reason was....right?

​


----------



## geauxtohell

The Rabbi said:


> Would suck to be one of them.



You didn't even get his point do you?

Take a biostats class, or just a statistics class.


----------



## geauxtohell

Mr. Shaman said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do cigarettes have to do with this? Are you claiming they are also a perception altering substance??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are.  You don't see many people clamoring for Nicotine-less smokes, do you?
> 
> Here's how I see the difference:
> 
> Alcohol is addictive to the point that addicts are in danger of dying during withdrawal.  It impairs the senses and judgment and kills brains cells.  It also destroys the liver.  You can overdose on alcohol.
> 
> Cigarettes are highly addictive and highly carcinogenic to virtually every tissue in the body.  Even if you avoid cancer, they destroy lung tissue and your odds of getting COPD are high, which is a progressively fatal condition that will have you in the hospital several times a year for COPD exacerbation until it contributes to your death in some manner or the other.
> 
> Pot is not physiologically addictive, impairs the senses and alters judgment. You can't overdose on it, but the long term effects on the body are not well studied/known.  *There is some evidence to suggest it might trigger schizophrenia in persons who are habitual users who are predispositioned to it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's *some bullshit-study* that (typically) shows-up at the BBC-website.
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


They are just reporting the results of a scientific study (n = 523 this time as opposed to 10 on the last study).  

Cannabis-induced psychosis and subsequent schizoph... [Br J Psychiatry. 2005] - PubMed result

I'd be inclined to wave it off too, except I just got off a rotation where a patient who was a chronic MJ smoker started to manifest psychosis and other s/s of schizophrenia.  I am not sure what the final conclusion was.

My point is this:  the effects of chronic MJ use on the body haven't been well studied.  It's reasonable to assume that anything that alters the body, like nicotine and ethyl alcohol, will do some sort of damage to people.  

That doesn't bother me.  People can make their own choices, but it's a little premature to say that MJ is absolutely harmless.


----------



## Wry Catcher

saveliberty said:


> The federal government wants to regulate your sugar and salt intake.  Marijuana is certainly a reasonable substance to regulate by that standard.  Your weak arguments about marijuana not killing you it was the fall or the car crash is laughable.  Sort of like saying the heart attack killed you, not the excess weigh, smoking, lack of exercise and so on.  They are called contributing factors folks.
> 
> The premise of the thread is false.  It is also interesting to see how unmellow you stoners are when it comes to discussing this issue.  It is illegal for good reason.  Take your energy and passion using it to end cigarette use and limit alcohol use.  That would be far more helpful and productive.



I suggest you read what you post and revise it.
1.  The federal government did not ban sugar or salt.  Buy as much as you want at the market and stuff yourself.
2.  MJ is not regulated (as is alcohol); MJ is a schedule I drug.
3.  A queston is not a premise.
4.  As a non-stoner, you also seem to be unmellow.
5.  List the good reasons for it being 'illegal'.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

Care4all said:


> the govt does not have the constitutional powers to make alcohol, cigarettes or marijuana illegal....what they have done, is unconstitutional....they used back door methods to make marijuana illegal....they said it was still legal, but you had to buy a tax stamp to distribute it, then when doctors applied for the tax stamp to prescribe it, the gvt had no tax stamps to purchase....they never printed any....they killed marijuana's legality, over night.
> 
> the companies like cocacola and Hearst Paper and the alcohol industry lobbied hard to ban it because marijuana was competition to them....hemp paper, what the original bible text was printed on, was huge competition for Hearst, who owned newspapers and magazines and had just bought huge tracks of forest and a paper company....
> 
> On top of this, there was racism....the religious said that marijuana made mexican men rape white women....
> 
> HEMP, marijuana, was required BY LAW for every plantation in the south to grow...the colonies needed the rope made from it, to operate their new vessels they were building....Jefferson owned sever Hemp plantations.
> 
> Please watch the History Channel's, "History of illegal Drugs" documentary.



You've _pretty_-much encapsulated everything that's (already) *in* this thread, so it wouldn't hurt for you to digest something-else; *The Shafer Report*, when *Dick Nixon* (the DEA's "Daddy") was first-shown his _War On Drugs_ was a waste o' time & money*!!*


----------



## Mr. Shaman

geauxtohell said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are.  You don't see many people clamoring for Nicotine-less smokes, do you?
> 
> Here's how I see the difference:
> 
> Alcohol is addictive to the point that addicts are in danger of dying during withdrawal.  It impairs the senses and judgment and kills brains cells.  It also destroys the liver.  You can overdose on alcohol.
> 
> Cigarettes are highly addictive and highly carcinogenic to virtually every tissue in the body.  Even if you avoid cancer, they destroy lung tissue and your odds of getting COPD are high, which is a progressively fatal condition that will have you in the hospital several times a year for COPD exacerbation until it contributes to your death in some manner or the other.
> 
> Pot is not physiologically addictive, impairs the senses and alters judgment. You can't overdose on it, but the long term effects on the body are not well studied/known.  *There is some evidence to suggest it might trigger schizophrenia in persons who are habitual users who are predispositioned to it.*
> 
> 
> 
> That's *some bullshit-study* that (typically) shows-up at the BBC-website.
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are just reporting the results of a scientific study (n = 523 this time as opposed to 10 on the last study).
> 
> Cannabis-induced psychosis and subsequent schizoph... [Br J Psychiatry. 2005] - PubMed result
> 
> I'd be inclined to wave it off too, except I just got off a rotation where a patient who was a chronic MJ smoker started to manifest psychosis and other s/s of schizophrenia.  I am not sure what the final conclusion was.
Click to expand...

Gee.....how 'bout the fact schizophrenia *TYPICALLY* shows-up when people are *IN* their teens*??!!!*

​


----------



## SpidermanTuba

JBeukema said:


> THC is not physically addictive.



BULLSHIT



> Period. Repeated clinical studies have established that fact.



Then their subjects didn't smoke as much dope as me. I had to quit once, and I had _mild anxiety_ for like two weeks. A debillitating symptom. LOL


Having quit cigarettes before, I'd say cigarrettes 10 times worse to withdraw from


----------



## SpidermanTuba

The Rabbi said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> This took all of 15 seconds.  The internet is great.
> Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction -- As Much As 20 Years Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That study was conducted with a sample of 10 patients. This is not a misprint.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullous lung disease due to marijuana
> 
> HII SW, TAM JDC, THOMPSON BR, NAUGHTON MT. Respirology 2008; 13: 122-127 Background and objective:&#8195;
> 
> In contrast to the well-described effects of tobacco smoking upon pulmonary emphysema, with &#8764;15% of smokers being affected at the age of 65&#8201;years, the effects of marijuana smoking are rarely reported and poorly understood. Methods:&#8195;
> 
> *We report a series of 10 patients* (mean age 41&#8201;±&#8201;9&#8201;years, eight male, two female), who presented over a period of 12&#8201;months to our respiratory unit with new respiratory symptoms, and who admitted to regular chronic marijuana smoking (>1&#8201;year continuously). Symptoms on presentation were dyspnoea (n&#8201;=&#8201;4), pneumothorax (n&#8201;=&#8201;4) and chest infection (n&#8201;=&#8201;2). Results:&#8195;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would suck to be one of them.
Click to expand...




It would suck to be you, yet you don't see me wanting to ban your favorite things.


----------



## geauxtohell

Mr. Shaman said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's *some bullshit-study* that (typically) shows-up at the BBC-website.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are just reporting the results of a scientific study (n = 523 this time as opposed to 10 on the last study).
> 
> Cannabis-induced psychosis and subsequent schizoph... [Br J Psychiatry. 2005] - PubMed result
> 
> I'd be inclined to wave it off too, except I just got off a rotation where a patient who was a chronic MJ smoker started to manifest psychosis and other s/s of schizophrenia.  I am not sure what the final conclusion was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee.....how 'bout the fact schizophrenia *TYPICALLY* shows-up when people are *IN* their teens*??!!!*
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


That's not true.  Schizophrenia typically manifests between 18-35 years of age.  In that spectrum, it onsets earlier in men and later in women.  I believe the mean is somewhere in the early-to-mid twenties and the current theory is that the cause of Schizophrenia is some sort of mishap when the brain undergoes it's last re-wiring.  The incidence of schizophrenia is 1% for men, women, blacks, whites, etc and has been at that number for as long as anyone has recorded it.  It's a relatively rare problem, but for people who are schizophrenic, it means they will never have a "normal" life.  

Like I said, MJ hasn't been fully studied for people just to wave off any adverse effects it has.


----------



## saveliberty

Wry Catcher said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government wants to regulate your sugar and salt intake.  Marijuana is certainly a reasonable substance to regulate by that standard.  Your weak arguments about marijuana not killing you it was the fall or the car crash is laughable.  Sort of like saying the heart attack killed you, not the excess weigh, smoking, lack of exercise and so on.  They are called contributing factors folks.
> 
> The premise of the thread is false.  It is also interesting to see how unmellow you stoners are when it comes to discussing this issue.  It is illegal for good reason.  Take your energy and passion using it to end cigarette use and limit alcohol use.  That would be far more helpful and productive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you read what you post and revise it.
> 1.  The federal government did not ban sugar or salt.  Buy as much as you want at the market and stuff yourself.
> 2.  MJ is not regulated (as is alcohol); MJ is a schedule I drug.
> 3.  A queston is not a premise.
> 4.  As a non-stoner, you also seem to be unmellow.
> 5.  List the good reasons for it being 'illegal'.
Click to expand...


I never said sugar or salt was banned.  You read okay?  Marijuana certainly is regulated, just what is a schedule drug, if not regulated?  The question was phrased in a premise format.  You don't have the slightest idea of my disposition.  There are many good reasons, go find them yourself, don't waste my time.  If you were open to change I might have a different approach with you.  That the best you got?


----------



## California Girl

geauxtohell said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that lots of people want to justify their addiction to marijuana by saying it's harmless, or less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes. Simply put, lie to yourselves if you must - take whatever drug you feel inclined to.... but.... don't affect me and mine. I'm sick and tired of my family being impacted by the selfish stupidity of others. You want to affect your brain, body and kill yourselves. Absolutely fine and dandy. Just don't kill someone else while your doing it. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since your drug of choice is alcohol how are you any better?  Have you ever driven after drinking any alcohol?  Then you have put society in as much danger, if not more, than a pot smoker.
Click to expand...


I drink about three times a year, if that. And by 'drink', I mean I have a couple - never get get hammered. 

I have never, in my life, gotten into the drivers seat of any car. I don't drink - not even one - if I'm driving. I know only too well what happens when people drink and drive, thanks. Personally, I'd like to see the death penalty for any driver who kills someone whilst under the influence of drink or drugs.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

California Girl said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that lots of people want to justify their addiction to marijuana by saying it's harmless, or less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes. Simply put, lie to yourselves if you must - take whatever drug you feel inclined to.... but.... don't affect me and mine. I'm sick and tired of my family being impacted by the selfish stupidity of others. You want to affect your brain, body and kill yourselves. Absolutely fine and dandy. Just don't kill someone else while your doing it. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since your drug of choice is alcohol how are you any better?  Have you ever driven after drinking any alcohol?  Then you have put society in as much danger, if not more, than a pot smoker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I drink about three times a year, if that. And by 'drink', I mean I have a couple - never get get hammered.
Click to expand...


What the fuck do you do then?




> I have never, in my life, gotten into the drivers seat of any car.



THANK SWEET LORD JESUS. There's no telling how many lives you've saved already. Keep it up!



> Personally, I'd like to see the death penalty for any driver who kills someone whilst under the influence of drink or drugs.



Because when people kill out of negligence - they should be put down like dogs

When corporations kill out of negligence - we should buy more of their products to help them out.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

SpidermanTuba said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> THC is not physically addictive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Period. Repeated clinical studies have established that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then their subjects didn't smoke as much dope as me. I had to quit once, and I had _mild anxiety_ for like two weeks.
Click to expand...

At the very-least, it *does* seem to have over-amped your imagination.

​


----------



## saveliberty

SpidermanTuba said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to get down to "facts" on this subject, none of the three things mentioned are any good for you the way MOST people actually use them. * To see them go on and on about the burden they bear from the laws is quite immature and selfish as near as I can see.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your handle is 'saveliberty' - what a fucking hypocrite you are. What you mean is "save MY liberty and FUCK everyone else's"
Click to expand...


Your liberty to function at a diminished capacity while driving or at work?  To have health related issues from its use that I get to pay for?  The crime that is commited in the name of a "harmless" drug?  You over stepped your liberty pal.


----------



## California Girl

SpidermanTuba said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since your drug of choice is alcohol how are you any better?  Have you ever driven after drinking any alcohol?  Then you have put society in as much danger, if not more, than a pot smoker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I drink about three times a year, if that. And by 'drink', I mean I have a couple - never get get hammered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck do you do then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never, in my life, gotten into the drivers seat of any car.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THANK SWEET LORD JESUS. There's no telling how many lives you've saved already. Keep it up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I'd like to see the death penalty for any driver who kills someone whilst under the influence of drink or drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because when people kill out of negligence - they should be put down like dogs
> 
> When corporations kill out of negligence - we should buy more of their products to help them out.
Click to expand...


I am happy with my life, I don't need to 'escape' from reality with drink or drugs. 

Driving under the influence is not 'negligence', it is premeditated murder. They are aware of the risk to others and choose to do it anyway. So, yep, they should be put down.... I would care more about a dog than someone who kills an innocent person by driving under the influence. 

Like you and your hysteria about BP, I guess it takes personal experience to understand what it is like to have someone you care for die by the stupid selfishness of another.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

geauxtohell said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are just reporting the results of a scientific study (n = 523 this time as opposed to 10 on the last study).
> 
> Cannabis-induced psychosis and subsequent schizoph... [Br J Psychiatry. 2005] - PubMed result
> 
> I'd be inclined to wave it off too, except I just got off a rotation where a patient who was a chronic MJ smoker started to manifest psychosis and other s/s of schizophrenia.  I am not sure what the final conclusion was.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee.....how 'bout the fact schizophrenia *TYPICALLY* shows-up when people are *IN* their teens*??!!!*
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not true.  Schizophrenia typically manifests between 18-35 years of age.
Click to expand...

Pardon me!!

I had no idea 18 & 19 didn't qualify as "teens".

​


----------



## geauxtohell

California Girl said:


> I drink about three times a year, if that. And by 'drink', I mean I have a couple - never get get hammered.
> 
> I have never, in my life, gotten into the drivers seat of any car. I don't drink - not even one - if I'm driving. I know only too well what happens when people drink and drive, thanks. Personally, I'd like to see the death penalty for any driver who kills someone whilst under the influence of drink or drugs.



Fair enough.  The buzz on the board led me to believe you liked to drink frequently.  I am not judgmental about that, as I like to drink.  Frequently.  

As I said, your drug of choice is alcohol, whether you use it frequently or infrequently.


----------



## Dr Gregg

ONe reason, idiots in the general public who just believe all the propaganda about marijuana, and are too dumb to realize or notice the truth.

Legalize it already, what a boom to a bad economy. INstead of money going to criminals and the black market, can go to businesses that can hire people. Taxes collected on it would help local governments who are in fiscal trouble. Instead of heavily armed gangs threatening national parks, it can be grown legally without the dangers associated with criminals.


----------



## geauxtohell

Mr. Shaman said:


> Pardon me!!
> 
> I had no idea 18 & 19 didn't qualify as "teens".
> 
> ​



Pardon you.  You selectively omitted all of my other information I posted, especially about the mean age of onset.  

Schizophrenia at 18 or 19 would be considered a very early onset.


----------



## Dr Gregg

saveliberty said:


> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get your facts straight and then maybe we can talk.  No one died from a marijuana related incident?  Really?  Link please.
Click to expand...


Like you have a fucking clue what facts are. In your mind whatever you already believe is facts


----------



## Mr. Shaman

California Girl said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I drink about three times a year, if that. And by 'drink', I mean I have a couple - never get get hammered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck do you do then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THANK SWEET LORD JESUS. There's no telling how many lives you've saved already. Keep it up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I'd like to see the death penalty for any driver who kills someone whilst under the influence of drink or drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because when people kill out of negligence - they should be put down like dogs
> 
> When corporations kill out of negligence - we should buy more of their products to help them out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am happy with my life, I don't need to 'escape' from reality with drink or drugs.
> 
> Driving under the influence is not 'negligence', it is premeditated murder. They are aware of the risk to others and choose to do it anyway. So, yep, they should be put down....
Click to expand...

....Es*pecially* if they're *alcoholics*, right??

*Then*, we could *keep* regressing....and, start burning epileptics, at the stake (again), for being *possessed!!!*

What a _wonderful, little World_ it'd be, if we could exterm...er, _eliminate_ *ALL* sick-people*!!!* (...The-sooner-the-*better**!!*)

​


----------



## California Girl

geauxtohell said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I drink about three times a year, if that. And by 'drink', I mean I have a couple - never get get hammered.
> 
> I have never, in my life, gotten into the drivers seat of any car. I don't drink - not even one - if I'm driving. I know only too well what happens when people drink and drive, thanks. Personally, I'd like to see the death penalty for any driver who kills someone whilst under the influence of drink or drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough.  The buzz on the board led me to believe you liked to drink frequently.  I am not judgmental about that, as I like to drink.  Frequently.
> 
> As I said, your drug of choice is alcohol, whether you use it frequently or infrequently.
Click to expand...


Because I joke about alcohol, that means I drink regularly? How stupid. I go months without drinking. I did drugs exactly once in my like - didn't like it so ain't doing it.


----------



## geauxtohell

California Girl said:


> Because I joke about alcohol, that means I drink regularly? How stupid.



Well, typically, humor is grounded in reality.  When people frequently joke about being in bars and drinking, it typically means they do so on a more frequent basis.  I would say joking about drinking a lot when you hardly drink at all makes you more of a lame poser.     



> I go months without drinking. I did drugs exactly once in my like - didn't like it so ain't doing it.



Good for you.  The healthy lifestyle.


----------



## saveliberty

Mr. Shaman said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck do you do then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THANK SWEET LORD JESUS. There's no telling how many lives you've saved already. Keep it up!
> 
> 
> 
> Because when people kill out of negligence - they should be put down like dogs
> 
> When corporations kill out of negligence - we should buy more of their products to help them out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy with my life, I don't need to 'escape' from reality with drink or drugs.
> 
> Driving under the influence is not 'negligence', it is premeditated murder. They are aware of the risk to others and choose to do it anyway. So, yep, they should be put down....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....Es*pecially* if they're *alcoholics*, right??
> 
> *Then*, we could *keep* regressing....and, start burning epileptics, at the stake (again), for being *possessed!!!*
> 
> What a _wonderful, little World_ it'd be, if we could exterm...er, _eliminate_ *ALL* sick-people*!!!* (...The-sooner-the-*better**!!*)
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


So you consider allowing those under the influence killing innocent people progress?  Further, you don't want to discourage the activity by instituting a large penalty?

You can kill someone and pay less than $4,000.


----------



## geauxtohell

FWIW:

"Medicinal Marijuana" is on the ballot in my state, and I'll vote for it simply because I see it as a step towards legalization. 

However, I have real problems with the concept of medicinal marijuana.  The medicinal benefits for MJ are relatively slim.  It seems to be a good option for chemo patients and other people with terminal conditions.

However, legalizing medicinal MJ basically is going to create a bunch of patients who are going to come up with bullshit excuses to prompt doctors into making bullshit excuses to get a MJ script.  If anyone doubts that, look at what has happened in California.  Doctors don't want to be people's "Dr. Feelgood" or write scripts for something whose only real purpose is to get people high, especially when their are other drugs that would work better whose effects have been studied.  

Another example, and I see this a lot as a med student, is "medicinal opium" versus other pain relievers, i.e. NSAIDs or acetaminophen.  I think naproxen is a great drug (Aleve) to control pain.  Narcotic pain medications exist for pain that is so extreme it can't be managed adequately by NSAIDs.  Basically, save for few conditions (i.e. sickle cell anemia, or recovery from major trauma/surgery), I don't see why any opiate should be used outside of an inpatient setting.  Yet, there more people than anyone would like to admit who are hooked on percocet for something that an NSAID could control just as well.  The problem is that now they are hooked on opiates and the withdrawal process is going to be painful for them as well.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

saveliberty said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy with my life, I don't need to 'escape' from reality with drink or drugs.
> 
> Driving under the influence is not 'negligence', it is premeditated murder. They are aware of the risk to others and choose to do it anyway. So, yep, they should be put down....
> 
> 
> 
> ....Es*pecially* if they're *alcoholics*, right??
> 
> *Then*, we could *keep* regressing....and, start burning epileptics, at the stake (again), for being *possessed!!!*
> 
> What a _wonderful, little World_ it'd be, if we could exterm...er, _eliminate_ *ALL* sick-people*!!!* (...The-sooner-the-*better**!!*)
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you consider allowing those under the influence killing innocent people progress?  Further, you don't want to discourage the activity by instituting a large penalty?
> 
> You can kill someone and pay less than $4,000.
Click to expand...

*Nope!!!*

I figure....if someone *can't* manage their drinking, without driving, they *probably* need to be confined*!*

*Everyone*, I've known (to the *person*), who had substance-issues, had personal-issues/problems loooooooooooooooooooong before the drugs (*including* alcohol) came-along*!!*

If we, as a society, are _satisfied_ (outta sheer-laziness) to keep putting _band-aids_ on the symptoms ('cause that's all addiction/dependence *are*), we can't very-well complain that these issues won't _go-away_ (on their own).  

Ya' wanna start exterminating people with health/psychological-issues....to make Life more-_palatable_/convenient, for everyone-else....just say so.​


----------



## Mr. Shaman

geauxtohell said:


> FWIW:
> 
> "Medicinal Marijuana" is on the ballot in my state, and I'll vote for it simply because I see it as a step towards legalization.
> 
> However, I have real problems with the concept of medicinal marijuana.  The medicinal benefits for MJ are relatively slim.  It seems to be a good option for chemo patients and other people with terminal conditions.
> 
> *However, legalizing medicinal MJ basically is going to create a bunch of patients who are going to come up with bullshit excuses to prompt doctors into making bullshit excuses to get a MJ script.  If anyone doubts that, look at what has happened in California.  Doctors don't want to be people's "Dr. Feelgood" or write scripts for something whose only real purpose is to get people high, especially when their are other drugs that would work better whose effects have been studied.*


Ah, *yes*, because....after *ALL*...the *pharmaceutical-indu$try* should be *PRIORITY 1**!!!!!*

​


----------



## Foxfyre

Last month we attended the funeral/burial of my husband's nephew, dead of lung cancer and brain cancer almost certainly attributable to his cigarette smoking.  I lost my mother and other loved ones to the same syndrome.

We have two nephews in prison, both due to criminal acts generated by their craving for the illegal drugs to which they are addicted.  Both had numerous opportunities to dry out and get straight prior to prison.  Neither was able to stay off the drugs which drove them both to criminal activity again.

There really aren't all that many folks in prison just because they are users or possessed the drug.  Almost all are sentenced due to illegal activity to support their habits or intent to sell.   Would legalization change that?  It would certainly reduce the arrests for possession, and possibly make some crime (stealing) less 'necessary'.  But. . . .

--Many crimes are committed by addicts to get drugs, not because their drugs are illegal.
--Decriminalizing drug use does not reduce their addictive power or signifcantly reduce drug trafficking. The black market would still exist for those unable to get 'enough' through legal means. 
--Impaired judgment frequently encourages violent behavior and sexual assault. 
--Drugged driving is becoming more of a problem every year; 11 million Americans reported driving under the influence of drugs in 2004. 

And just spend a bit of time at an AA meeting or alcohol rehab center or hospital emergency room or work with families of alcoholics and you will see first hand the devastating, cruel effects of alcohol abuse.

As for those countries that have legalized drugs, the results are mixed, but the picture isn't all that rosy including the Netherlands:  See here:
The Experience of Foreign Countries and Drug Legalization


----------



## geauxtohell

Mr. Shaman said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW:
> 
> "Medicinal Marijuana" is on the ballot in my state, and I'll vote for it simply because I see it as a step towards legalization.
> 
> However, I have real problems with the concept of medicinal marijuana.  The medicinal benefits for MJ are relatively slim.  It seems to be a good option for chemo patients and other people with terminal conditions.
> 
> *However, legalizing medicinal MJ basically is going to create a bunch of patients who are going to come up with bullshit excuses to prompt doctors into making bullshit excuses to get a MJ script.  If anyone doubts that, look at what has happened in California.  Doctors don't want to be people's "Dr. Feelgood" or write scripts for something whose only real purpose is to get people high, especially when their are other drugs that would work better whose effects have been studied.*
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, *yes*, because....after *ALL*...the *pharmaceutical-indu$try* should be *PRIORITY 1**!!!!!*
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


No.  Medical science should be number one.  I think they should just legalize MJ so we can commence with the bullshit about it's medicinal benefits.  Especially when those benefits haven't been fully established or have been proven to be more beneficial than other medications.  If MJ was being dispensed in California for the few items where it truly has a medicinal benefit, it wouldn't be a problem.  That's not the case. 

Furthermore, if I were concerned with big pharma's bottom line, I wouldn't have stated that OTC NSAIDs were preferable to prescription narcs for pain management.


----------



## Care4all

saveliberty said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy with my life, I don't need to 'escape' from reality with drink or drugs.
> 
> Driving under the influence is not 'negligence', it is premeditated murder. They are aware of the risk to others and choose to do it anyway. So, yep, they should be put down....
> 
> 
> 
> ....Es*pecially* if they're *alcoholics*, right??
> 
> *Then*, we could *keep* regressing....and, start burning epileptics, at the stake (again), for being *possessed!!!*
> 
> What a _wonderful, little World_ it'd be, if we could exterm...er, _eliminate_ *ALL* sick-people*!!!* (...The-sooner-the-*better**!!*)
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you consider allowing those under the influence killing innocent people progress?  Further, you don't want to discourage the activity by instituting a large penalty?
> 
> You can kill someone and pay less than $4,000.
Click to expand...


however the person was killed, the person is dead, and if another person is responsible for said death, then they should be punished....as someone recklessly using a firearm, as someone talking on their cell phone when they hit the person and killed them as someone drunk or drugged out, that killed the person....the person is no more dead....and no less at the hands of another.....is how i see it....we do not need a gazillion more laws to take care of the problem...we have laws in place already for that kind of stuff....you kill someone, and are at fault, you pay the price...both criminal and civil, with lawsuits.

I do not drink* or smoke pot... I have no problems with people that do....I still think it is unconstitutional and an overreach of gvt.

*edit:
regularly...I will drink on occasion...vacation, I'm a slush!  but I am not driving anywhere, just plopped under a tiki hut, on a lounge chair!


----------



## GHook93

YoungLefty said:


> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.



First, your statistics on Pot related accidential deaths is beyond disingenious and beyond insulting for us to believe it to be 0! Pot is mind altering and believe it or not it slows your wits, makes your paranoid and well makes you stupid. Even when not smoking pot, it has lasting effect on pot heads, because the THC stores in your brain cells and slows them down. 

As a former pothead (meaning I smoked everyday) for many years. I know the effects pot has on your wits, nerves, and brain. I have droven while stoned many times. Not anywhere as dangerous as driving drunk. Not even close, but you are not all there and no amount of justification can say you are. 

Nevertheless I agree with your point, pot is a hell of a lot less dangerous and detrimental to society then alcohol is and it kills 10s of thousands less people then Tobacco. Not to mention its beyond a miracle drug to chemo patients. I for one can't think of ANY good reasons why pot is illegal (but then again I'm for overturning the Harrison Act and decriminalizing Cocaine, Herion, Shroms and Pot)!


----------



## geauxtohell

GHook93 said:


> because the THC stores in your brain cells and slows them down.



THC distributes to body fat.  Not braincells.


----------



## Foxfyre

Care4all said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....Es*pecially* if they're *alcoholics*, right??
> 
> *Then*, we could *keep* regressing....and, start burning epileptics, at the stake (again), for being *possessed!!!*
> 
> What a _wonderful, little World_ it'd be, if we could exterm...er, _eliminate_ *ALL* sick-people*!!!* (...The-sooner-the-*better**!!*)
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you consider allowing those under the influence killing innocent people progress?  Further, you don't want to discourage the activity by instituting a large penalty?
> 
> You can kill someone and pay less than $4,000.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> however the person was killed, the person is dead, and if another person is responsible for said death, then they should be punished....as someone recklessly using a firearm, as someone talking on their cell phone when they hit the person and killed them as someone drunk or drugged out, that killed the person....the person is no more dead....and no less at the hands of another.....is how i see it....we do not need a gazillion more laws to take care of the problem...we have laws in place already for that kind of stuff....you kill someone, and are at fault, you pay the price...both criminal and civil, with lawsuits.
> 
> I do not drink or smoke pot... I have no problems with people that do....I still think it is unconstitutional and an overreach of gvt.
Click to expand...


I have a hard time quarreling with this, but I do think we have to have means to protect the innocent before they get hurt too.  I'm still struggling with how best that can be done.  I do know that consequences for hurting another while under the influence should be swift, severe, and absolute whatever means we use to accomplish that.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

Foxfyre said:


> As for those countries that have legalized drugs, the results are mixed, but the picture isn't all that rosy including the Netherlands:  See here:
> The Experience of Foreign Countries and Drug Legalization


How 'bout something a *little-more-current*.

I look at it this way.....If someone prefers to keep a "habit"....and, do day-labor type work....until they get "tired-of", or are ready to "kick" their habit, that should pretty-much be their option. It wouldn't be my choice, but...by-the-same-token....I don't appreciate anyone telling me how to live *my* Life, either.​


----------



## JBeukema

California Girl said:


> It seems to me that lots of people want to justify their addiction to marijuana



Repeated clinical studies have shown that THC (the active substance in marijuana) is not physically addictive- but far be it from you to know what you're talking about.


*Myth: Marijuana is Highly Addictive. Long term marijuana  users experience physical dependence and withdrawal, and often need  professional drug treatment to break their marijuana habits.* *Fact:* Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only  occasionally. A small minority of Americans - less than 1 percent -  smoke marijuana on a daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a  dependence on marijuana. Some people who smoke marijuana heavily and  frequently stop without difficulty. Others seek help from drug treatment  professionals. Marijuana does not cause physical dependence. If people  experience withdrawal symptoms at all, they are remarkably mild.


 United States. Dept. of Health and Human Services. DASIS Report  Series, Differences in Marijuana Admissions Based on Source of Referral.  2002. June 24 2005.
 

 Johnson, L.D., et al. National Survey Results on Drug Use from the  Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1994, Volume II: College Students and  Young Adults. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human  Services, 1996.
 

 Kandel, D.B., et al. Prevalence and demographic correlates of  symptoms of dependence on cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana and cocaine in  the U.S. population. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 44  (1997):11-29.
 

 Stephens, R.S., et al. Adult marijuana users seeking treatment. Journal  of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61 (1993): 1100-1104.
Myths and Facts About Marijuana


> I'm sick and tired of my family being impacted by the selfish stupidity of others.



Hello, pot.


> You want to affect your brain, body



Ever drink coffee or tea?


> and kill yourselves.



I'm sure you only eat vegan foods, you exercise for 40 minutes every day, and you wear a gas mask any time to approach the city for supplies


----------



## JBeukema

There  have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana, and in a  large study presented to the American Thoracic Society in 2006, even  heavy users of smoked marijuana were found not to have any increased  risk of lung cancer. Unlike heavy tobacco smokers, heavy marijuana  smokers exhibit no obstruction of the lung's small airway. That  indicates that people will not develop emphysema from smoking marijuana.  

 Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. &#8220;Legalization: Panacea or  Pandora&#8217;s Box.&#8221; New York. (1995): 36.
 

 Turner, Carlton E. The Marijuana Controversy. Rockville:  American Council for Drug Education, 1981.
 

 Nahas, Gabriel G. and Nicholas A. Pace. Letter. &#8220;Marijuana as  Chemotherapy Aid Poses Hazards.&#8221; New York Times 4 December 1993:  A20.
 

 Inaba, Darryl S. and William E. Cohen. Uppers, Downers,  All-Arounders: Physical and Mental Effects of Psychoactive Drugs.  2nd ed. Ashland: CNS Productions, 1995. 174.

Myths and Facts About Marijuana


----------



## Mr. Shaman

geauxtohell said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW:
> 
> "Medicinal Marijuana" is on the ballot in my state, and I'll vote for it simply because I see it as a step towards legalization.
> 
> However, I have real problems with the concept of medicinal marijuana.  The medicinal benefits for MJ are relatively slim.  It seems to be a good option for chemo patients and other people with terminal conditions.
> 
> *However, legalizing medicinal MJ basically is going to create a bunch of patients who are going to come up with bullshit excuses to prompt doctors into making bullshit excuses to get a MJ script.  If anyone doubts that, look at what has happened in California.  Doctors don't want to be people's "Dr. Feelgood" or write scripts for something whose only real purpose is to get people high, especially when their are other drugs that would work better whose effects have been studied.*
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, *yes*, because....after *ALL*...the *pharmaceutical-indu$try* should be *PRIORITY 1**!!!!!*
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Medical science should be number one.  I think they should just legalize MJ so we can commence with the bullshit about it's medicinal benefits.  Especially when those benefits haven't been fully established or have been proven to be more beneficial than other medications.  If MJ was being dispensed in California for the few items where it truly has a medicinal benefit, it wouldn't be a problem.  That's not the case.
Click to expand...

Well....this is what we *get*, seeing-as-how "the government" (or, at least the DEA's "job-security apparatus" has kept Pot Schedule I...and, *avoided* any actual-research). There's also the politicians' tendency to be "gun-shy" o' the issue...primarily due to the WWII-Gen "luddites". 

BTW...in Colorado, the doctors (who write the "scripts") are on-site. It isn't some big issue with scheduling/appointments/etc.​


----------



## Mr. Shaman

Care4all said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....Es*pecially* if they're *alcoholics*, right??
> 
> *Then*, we could *keep* regressing....and, start burning epileptics, at the stake (again), for being *possessed!!!*
> 
> What a _wonderful, little World_ it'd be, if we could exterm...er, _eliminate_ *ALL* sick-people*!!!* (...The-sooner-the-*better**!!*)
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you consider allowing those under the influence killing innocent people progress?  Further, you don't want to discourage the activity by instituting a large penalty?
> 
> You can kill someone and pay less than $4,000.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> however the person was killed, the person is dead, and if another person is responsible for said death, then they should be punished....as someone recklessly using a firearm, as someone talking on their cell phone when they hit the person and killed them as someone drunk or drugged out, that killed the person....the person is no more dead....and no less at the hands of another.....is how i see it.....
Click to expand...

....And, everyone-else is (obviously) _satisfied_ with the way things work, presently....until it happens to them.​


----------



## Luissa

GHook93 said:


> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, your statistics on Pot related accidential deaths is beyond disingenious and beyond insulting for us to believe it to be 0! Pot is mind altering and believe it or not it slows your wits, makes your paranoid and well makes you stupid. Even when not smoking pot, it has lasting effect on pot heads, because the THC stores in your brain cells and slows them down.
> 
> As a former pothead (meaning I smoked everyday) for many years. I know the effects pot has on your wits, nerves, and brain. I have droven while stoned many times. Not anywhere as dangerous as driving drunk. Not even close, but you are not all there and no amount of justification can say you are.
> 
> Nevertheless I agree with your point, pot is a hell of a lot less dangerous and detrimental to society then alcohol is and it kills 10s of thousands less people then Tobacco. Not to mention its beyond a miracle drug to chemo patients. I for one can't think of ANY good reasons why pot is illegal (but then again I'm for overturning the Harrison Act and decriminalizing Cocaine, Herion, Shroms and Pot)!
Click to expand...


Marijuana doesn't kill brain cells, and in one study they found marijuana can some cases slow down the progression of plague build up in your brain. (dementia)
It can cause temporary short term memory loss.



> Government experts now admit that pot doesn't kill brain cells.(8) 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.(9) 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 Research(10) and the other by Charles Rebert and Gordon Pryor of SRI International.(11) 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.(12) 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.(13) It is worth noting that other drugs, including alcohol, are known to cause brain damage.Marijuana Health Mythology


----------



## Mr. Shaman

GHook93 said:


> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pot is mind altering and believe it or not it slows your wits, makes your paranoid and well makes you stupid. *Even when not smoking pot, it has lasting effect on pot heads, because the THC stores in your brain cells and slows them down.*
Click to expand...

Uhhhhhh.....riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....it makes *You* stupid, alright!

I'd surely like to see your research-paper on your *THC-in-brain-cells* _theory_.

​


----------



## geauxtohell

Mr. Shaman said:


> Well....this is what we *get*, seeing-as-how "the government" (or, at least the DEA's "job-security apparatus" has kept Pot Schedule I...and, *avoided* any actual-research). There's also the politicians' tendency to be "gun-shy" o' the issue...primarily due to the WWII-Gen "luddites".
> 
> BTW...in Colorado, the doctors (who write the "scripts") are on-site. It isn't some big issue with scheduling/appointments/etc.​



I agree it should be further studied before the medical benefits are touted either way.

The schedule two drugs that are cited have legitimate medicinal benefits, though not as recreational drugs (i.e. cocaine is used as a local anesthetic) and amphetamines are used for OCD and opiates are used for pain.  

My concern about medicinal marijuana wasn't about patients clogging up doctors offices.  It was dealing with the bullshit of regular patients who want an MJ script and are making up bullshit excuses simply because they want to get stoned.  You can deny it, but we both know it's a problem.  

Their are Drs. who are making a living off of just filling pot scripts.  I would argue that they have traded the responsibilities that come with their licenses for the $ of being a drug dealer.  This isn't limited to MJ.  Doctors get busted for pulling this stuff with narcotics all the time and lose their licenses.

My point is that Drs. should be in the business to prevent, treat, and manage disease.  Not to get people stoned for their own recreational needs.


----------



## geauxtohell

Mr. Shaman said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pot is mind altering and believe it or not it slows your wits, makes your paranoid and well makes you stupid. *Even when not smoking pot, it has lasting effect on pot heads, because the THC stores in your brain cells and slows them down.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uhhhhhh.....riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....it makes *You* stupid, alright!
> 
> I'd surely like to see your research-paper on your *THC-in-brain-cells* _theory_.
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


Considering that the brain stores no fuel products period (which is why losing blood flow to the brain will result in tissue death in a matter of minutes), I'd like to see that too.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

Foxfyre said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you consider allowing those under the influence killing innocent people progress?  Further, you don't want to discourage the activity by instituting a large penalty?
> 
> You can kill someone and pay less than $4,000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> however the person was killed, the person is dead, and if another person is responsible for said death, then they should be punished....as someone recklessly using a firearm, as someone talking on their cell phone when they hit the person and killed them as someone drunk or drugged out, that killed the person....the person is no more dead....and no less at the hands of another.....is how i see it....we do not need a gazillion more laws to take care of the problem...we have laws in place already for that kind of stuff....you kill someone, and are at fault, you pay the price...both criminal and civil, with lawsuits.
> 
> I do not drink or smoke pot... I have no problems with people that do....I still think it is unconstitutional and an overreach of gvt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a hard time quarreling with this, but I do think we have to have means to protect the innocent before they get hurt too.  I'm still struggling with how best that can be done.  I do know that consequences for hurting another while under the influence should be swift, severe, and absolute whatever means we use to accomplish that.
Click to expand...


So...what do you do with the manic-depressive...who's tryin' to self-medicate (with alcohol). You're gonna throw him into jail/prison for making a "bad-decision" (during one o' his/her episodes)??? You're (actually) gonna *punish* someone who's *ALREADY* sick?

 How 'bout if it was one o' your kids....or, a parent?​


----------



## geauxtohell

Mr. Shaman said:


> So...what do you do with the manic-depressive...who's tryin' to self-medicate (with alcohol). You're gonna throw him into jail/prison for making a "bad-decision" (during one o' his/her episodes)??? You're (actually) gonna *punish* someone who's *ALREADY* sick?
> 
> How 'bout if it was one o' your kids....or, a parent?​



I actually dealt with a bipolar patient who self medicated with MJ and had tried every psych drug known to man and hated them.  He liked being manic, but used MJ to keep him toned down when he was manic (as opposed to lithium) and to keep him elevated when he was depressed.

That seems like a legitimate indication for the drug.  That is far from the norm though.  

As I said, they should just legalize it period.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

Luissa said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, your statistics on Pot related accidential deaths is beyond disingenious and beyond insulting for us to believe it to be 0! Pot is mind altering and believe it or not it slows your wits, makes your paranoid and well makes you stupid. Even when not smoking pot, it has lasting effect on pot heads, because the THC stores in your brain cells and slows them down.
> 
> As a former pothead (meaning I smoked everyday) for many years. I know the effects pot has on your wits, nerves, and brain. I have droven while stoned many times. Not anywhere as dangerous as driving drunk. Not even close, but you are not all there and no amount of justification can say you are.
> 
> Nevertheless I agree with your point, pot is a hell of a lot less dangerous and detrimental to society then alcohol is and it kills 10s of thousands less people then Tobacco. Not to mention its beyond a miracle drug to chemo patients. I for one can't think of ANY good reasons why pot is illegal (but then again I'm for overturning the Harrison Act and decriminalizing Cocaine, Herion, Shroms and Pot)!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marijuana doesn't kill brain cells, and in one study they found marijuana can some slow down the progression of plague build up in your brain. (dementia)
> *It can cause temporary short term memory loss.*
Click to expand...

Yeah....when you're high....when you're tryin' to *take* a mini-vacation; that day/evening.​


----------



## Mr. Shaman

geauxtohell said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well....this is what we *get*, seeing-as-how "the government" (or, at least the DEA's "job-security apparatus" has kept Pot Schedule I...and, *avoided* any actual-research). There's also the politicians' tendency to be "gun-shy" o' the issue...primarily due to the WWII-Gen "luddites".
> 
> BTW...in Colorado, the doctors (who write the "scripts") are on-site. It isn't some big issue with scheduling/appointments/etc.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree it should be further studied before the medical benefits are touted either way.
> 
> The schedule two drugs that are cited have legitimate medicinal benefits, though not as recreational drugs (i.e. cocaine is used as a local anesthetic) and amphetamines are used for OCD and opiates are used for pain.
> 
> My concern about medicinal marijuana wasn't about patients clogging up doctors offices.  It was dealing with the bullshit of regular patients who want an MJ script and are making up bullshit excuses simply because they want to get stoned.  You can deny it, but we both know it's a problem.
Click to expand...

If it isn't a problem, for *the doctor*, why are *you* worried-about-it????

What....you'd prefer to see someone take some kind o' over-the-counter garbage, for insomnia......rather than (simply) smoke some Pot??

Where you wanna draw-the-line!​


geauxtohell said:


> Their are Drs. who are making a living off of just filling pot scripts.  I would argue that they have traded the responsibilities that come with their licenses for the $ of being a drug dealer.  This isn't limited to MJ.  Doctors get busted for pulling this stuff with narcotics all the time and lose their licenses.
> 
> *My point is that Drs. should be in the business to prevent, treat, and manage disease.  Not to get people stoned for their own recreational needs.*


You surely do seem obsessed with how other people relax.

Why's that?​


----------



## Mr. Shaman

geauxtohell said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...what do you do with the manic-depressive...who's tryin' to self-medicate (with alcohol). You're gonna throw him into jail/prison for making a "bad-decision" (during one o' his/her episodes)??? You're (actually) gonna *punish* someone who's *ALREADY* sick?
> 
> How 'bout if it was one o' your kids....or, a parent?​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually dealt with a bipolar patient who self medicated with MJ and had tried every psych drug known to man and hated them.  He liked being manic, but used MJ to keep him toned down when he was manic (as opposed to lithium) and to keep him elevated when he was depressed.
> 
> That seems like a legitimate indication for the drug.  That is far from the norm though.
> 
> As I said, they should just legalize it period.
Click to expand...


*Agreed!!!!*......But, I'm responding to *Foxfyre*....who wants to exact some *swift & severe punishment*, for alcohol-_abuse_.​


----------



## Foxfyre

Mr. Shaman said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...what do you do with the manic-depressive...who's tryin' to self-medicate (with alcohol). You're gonna throw him into jail/prison for making a "bad-decision" (during one o' his/her episodes)??? You're (actually) gonna *punish* someone who's *ALREADY* sick?
> 
> How 'bout if it was one o' your kids....or, a parent?​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually dealt with a bipolar patient who self medicated with MJ and had tried every psych drug known to man and hated them.  He liked being manic, but used MJ to keep him toned down when he was manic (as opposed to lithium) and to keep him elevated when he was depressed.
> 
> That seems like a legitimate indication for the drug.  That is far from the norm though.
> 
> As I said, they should just legalize it period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Agreed!!!!*......But, I'm responding to *Foxfyre*....who wants to exact some *swift & severe punishment*, for alcohol-_abuse_.​
Click to expand...


If you would go back and report what I said honestly, you would see that I did not in any way suggest swift or severe punishment for alcohol abuse.  I suggest swift and CERTAIN punishment for causing injury to others.   There is a huge difference between these two things.


----------



## geauxtohell

Mr. Shaman said:


> If it isn't a problem, for *the doctor*, why are *you* worried-about-it????​




Because it's bad for the profession.  I didn't go to medical school to become someone's pot dealer.   



> What....you'd prefer to see someone take some kind o' over-the-counter garbage, for insomnia......rather than (simply) smoke some Pot??



Where you wanna dray-the-line!​
I'd rather them take something that actually worked, as opposed to the Polly Anna-esque "Medicinal Marijuana cures everything" mentality some people have.  



> You surely do seem obsessed with how other people relax.
> 
> Why's that?​



Then you haven't been reading my posts.  I said they should just legalize it for recreational use.  I don't want the medical profession to be co-opted into writing scripts for helping people "relax".


----------



## California Girl

JBeukema said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that lots of people want to justify their addiction to marijuana
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeated clinical studies have shown that THC (the active substance in marijuana) is not physically addictive- but far be it from you to know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> *Myth: Marijuana is Highly Addictive. Long term marijuana  users experience physical dependence and withdrawal, and often need  professional drug treatment to break their marijuana habits.* *Fact:* Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only  occasionally. A small minority of Americans - less than 1 percent -  smoke marijuana on a daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a  dependence on marijuana. Some people who smoke marijuana heavily and  frequently stop without difficulty. Others seek help from drug treatment  professionals. Marijuana does not cause physical dependence. If people  experience withdrawal symptoms at all, they are remarkably mild.
> 
> 
> United States. Dept. of Health and Human Services. DASIS Report  Series, Differences in Marijuana Admissions Based on Source of Referral.  2002. June 24 2005.
> 
> 
> Johnson, L.D., et al. National Survey Results on Drug Use from the  Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1994, Volume II: College Students and  Young Adults. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human  Services, 1996.
> 
> 
> Kandel, D.B., et al. Prevalence and demographic correlates of  symptoms of dependence on cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana and cocaine in  the U.S. population. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 44  (1997):11-29.
> 
> 
> Stephens, R.S., et al. Adult marijuana users seeking treatment. Journal  of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61 (1993): 1100-1104.
> Myths and Facts About Marijuana
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sick and tired of my family being impacted by the selfish stupidity of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hello, pot.
> 
> 
> 
> You want to affect your brain, body
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever drink coffee or tea?
> 
> 
> 
> and kill yourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you only eat vegan foods, you exercise for 40 minutes every day, and you wear a gas mask any time to approach the city for supplies
Click to expand...


I think that anyone who feels so insecure that they need to dissect a post word for word to respond is a little bit pathetic. 

I mind my business. You do likewise. Get as stoned as you like, drink yourself into oblivion - I don't care. Just don't kill someone else when your stoned or drunk. Simple enough. What I dislike about the abuse of drugs or alcohol is the impact on others - I couldn't give a rats ass if someone chooses to subject themselves to the harms of any substance. Just don't expect me to pay for your treatment, fund you because you can't hold down a job or lose a member of my family because of your fucking stupidity. 

Do I sympathize with alcoholics? Nope. Junkies? Nope. Fuck off and screw with your own head - just STOP affecting other people.


----------



## Foxfyre

geauxtohell said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it isn't a problem, for *the doctor*, why are *you* worried-about-it????​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's bad for the profession.  I didn't go to medical school to become someone's pot dealer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What....you'd prefer to see someone take some kind o' over-the-counter garbage, for insomnia......rather than (simply) smoke some Pot??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where you wanna dray-the-line!​
> I'd rather them take something that actually worked, as opposed to the Polly Anna-esque "Medicinal Marijuana cures everything" mentality some people have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You surely do seem obsessed with how other people relax.
> 
> Why's that?​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you haven't been reading my posts.  I said they should just legalize it for recreational use.  I don't want the medical profession to be co-opted into writing scripts for helping people "relax".
Click to expand...


I am treading into waters that you know far better than I, but I'm guessing that most doctors will not prescribe pot smoking for any patients in lieu of better and less toxic ways to treat various symptoms.

I don't think anybody should go to jail or have a blight on their record just for smoking a joint any more than they should for having a couple of beers after work.  And regulation of potentially harmful substances only makes sense.  I do think the government should butt out though when it comes to promoting use of any potentially harmful substance.  That is not what it was designed for.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> I am treading into waters that you know far better than I, but I'm guessing that most doctors will not prescribe pot smoking for any patients in lieu of better and less toxic ways to treat various symptoms.



Not a good doctor.  I am still in medical school, but the new trend in medicine is towards "evidence based medicine" which adheres to the principle that prescription practices should be quantifiable which means that , regardless of the drug, there should be some real objective data that it does what it says it does.  

The fact that Doctors in California are setting up sole practices to dispense Marijuana for everything from terminal illnesses to PMS really bothers me.   



> I don't think anybody should go to jail or have a blight on their record just for smoking a joint any more than they should for having a couple of beers after work.  And regulation of potentially harmful substances only makes sense.  I do think the government should butt out though when it comes to promoting use of any potentially harmful substance.  That is not what it was designed for.



I think there are legitimate indications for MJ as a medication.  I just don't want the banner of compassionate patient care to be co-opted for people who really want to legalize it.  

If that's the case, just legalize it.


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Not much. I do find it funny though that the Socialists/Progressives are now pushing to legalize Marijuana when it is they who are always pushing to ban cigarettes. My God,how many tobacco farmers have they put out of business? Remember all their "Evil Tobacco Company" rhetoric. Lots of shady lawyers sure did get rich off those class-action suits huh? Unfortunately they put a whole lot of poor farmers out of business in the process. You can't only support real Freedom & Liberty when it's convenient. What about all those poor farmers they put out of business? This is the main problem i have with the Socialists/Progressives who are now pushing to legalize Marijuana. Can't really trust them.


----------



## geauxtohell

LibocalypseNow said:


> Not much. I do find it funny though that the Socialists/Progressives are now pushing to legalize Marijuana when it is they who are always pushing to ban cigarettes. My God,how many tobacco farmers have they put out of business? Remember all their "Evil Tobacco Company" rhetoric. Lots of shady lawyers sure did get rich off those class-action suits huh? Unfortunately they put a whole lot of poor farmers out of business in the process. You can't only support real Freedom & Liberty sometimes. This is the main problem i have with the Socialists/Progressives who are now pushing to legalize Marijuana. Can't really trust them.



Yeah, unfortunately for you, tobacco is the worst thing habit a person can pick up and the "Evil Tobacco Companies" knew it and purposely hid and crooked the data to try and  hide that fact, which is why they were viewed in such a poor light.


----------



## Dr Gregg

California Girl said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that lots of people want to justify their addiction to marijuana
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeated clinical studies have shown that THC (the active substance in marijuana) is not physically addictive- but far be it from you to know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> *Myth: Marijuana is Highly Addictive. Long term marijuana  users experience physical dependence and withdrawal, and often need  professional drug treatment to break their marijuana habits.* *Fact:* Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only  occasionally. A small minority of Americans - less than 1 percent -  smoke marijuana on a daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a  dependence on marijuana. Some people who smoke marijuana heavily and  frequently stop without difficulty. Others seek help from drug treatment  professionals. Marijuana does not cause physical dependence. If people  experience withdrawal symptoms at all, they are remarkably mild.
> 
> 
> United States. Dept. of Health and Human Services. DASIS Report  Series, Differences in Marijuana Admissions Based on Source of Referral.  2002. June 24 2005.
> 
> 
> Johnson, L.D., et al. National Survey Results on Drug Use from the  Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1994, Volume II: College Students and  Young Adults. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human  Services, 1996.
> 
> 
> Kandel, D.B., et al. Prevalence and demographic correlates of  symptoms of dependence on cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana and cocaine in  the U.S. population. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 44  (1997):11-29.
> 
> 
> Stephens, R.S., et al. Adult marijuana users seeking treatment. Journal  of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61 (1993): 1100-1104.
> Myths and Facts About Marijuana
> 
> Hello, pot.
> 
> 
> Ever drink coffee or tea?
> 
> 
> 
> and kill yourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you only eat vegan foods, you exercise for 40 minutes every day, and you wear a gas mask any time to approach the city for supplies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that anyone who feels so insecure that they need to dissect a post word for word to respond is a little bit pathetic.
> 
> I mind my business. You do likewise. Get as stoned as you like, drink yourself into oblivion - I don't care. Just don't kill someone else when your stoned or drunk. Simple enough. What I dislike about the abuse of drugs or alcohol is the impact on others - I couldn't give a rats ass if someone chooses to subject themselves to the harms of any substance. Just don't expect me to pay for your treatment, fund you because you can't hold down a job or lose a member of my family because of your fucking stupidity.
> 
> Do I sympathize with alcoholics? Nope. Junkies? Nope. Fuck off and screw with your own head - just STOP affecting other people.
Click to expand...



So what's your excuse? Play with mercury or too many paint chips as a kid?


----------



## JBeukema

California Girl said:


> I think that anyone who feels so insecure that they need to dissect a post word for word to respond is a little bit pathetic.



lol


anyone who gets so upset by having their claims refuted that they result to such lame attempts at an attacks shouldn't bother posting in the first place


----------



## LibocalypseNow

geauxtohell said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not much. I do find it funny though that the Socialists/Progressives are now pushing to legalize Marijuana when it is they who are always pushing to ban cigarettes. My God,how many tobacco farmers have they put out of business? Remember all their "Evil Tobacco Company" rhetoric. Lots of shady lawyers sure did get rich off those class-action suits huh? Unfortunately they put a whole lot of poor farmers out of business in the process. You can't only support real Freedom & Liberty sometimes. This is the main problem i have with the Socialists/Progressives who are now pushing to legalize Marijuana. Can't really trust them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, unfortunately for you, tobacco is the worst thing habit a person can pick up and the "Evil Tobacco Companies" knew it and purposely hid and crooked the data to try and  hide that fact, which is why they were viewed in such a poor light.
Click to expand...


Lots of sleazy Lawyers got rich while lots of poor tobacco farmers were put out of business. That has been the resulting reality of your Socialist/Progressive crusade against the "Evil Tobacco Companies." Now you guys want to legalize Marijuana? I'm sorry but i just can't trust you guys at this point. You should support real Freedom & Liberty all the time and not just when it's convenient for you. Your motives have to be questioned on this. It is what it is.


----------



## JBeukema

lol


right... it's been the Left, not the 'moral majority' waging the war on drugs this whole time


----------



## LibocalypseNow

It was the Socialist/Progressive Clinton Administration who waged all-out War against cigarettes. Lots of their sleazy lawyer buddies got rich off those class-action lawsuits while poor tobacco farmers were put out of business. That's just fact. Now these same Socialists/Progressives are screeching about legalizing Marijuana? Sorry,i just can't trust your motives. Believing in real Freedom & Liberty is hard. You can't only believe in it when it's convenient for you. What about all those poor tobacco farmers you guys put out of business?


----------



## Foxfyre

JBeukema said:


> lol
> 
> 
> right... it's been the Left, not the 'moral majority' waging the war on drugs this whole time



I believe what he is saying is that many on the Left, under the banner of freedom and liberty, want to be able to do what they want to do.  They want to smoke as much pot as they want or drink alcohol when and wherever they want without any government restraint.  Actually so do many on the right.

However some of those same folks want to prohibit others from engaging in activities deemed inappropriate or harmful or offensive.

So Citizen A wants freedom to do what they want to do, but want the government to prohibit Citizen B from doing stuff that Citizen A doesn't like.

And there is a disconnect in that don't you think?


----------



## Tom Clancy

Mr. Shaman said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there were someone/anyone that the Federal Government and the Pharmacutical industry could get a name on that actually died from long term use of marijuana--they would have a 24/7 advertisement against it.  You know it--I know it.
> 
> As far as you know someone that got "severely injured"--give me a freaking break.  Now go talk to your drunk neighbor that fell off of his porch and broke his leg---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance at it's best.
> 
> Sure, no one has died due to Overdose..  But being under the effect of it? Sure.. I've been there, saw it myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you've decided not to participate.
> 
> No prob.
> 
> Ya' got any problem with lettin' everyone-*else* makin' that decision, for *them*selves?​
Click to expand...


Read Shaman.. 

I'm a Smoker myself.. Smoke about 1-2 a Month.. I do it socially.. 

The point is, Saying Pot can't harm you or hasn't caused Deaths is Ignorant.. 

And no, I don't mean Death by Overdose.. That's quite impossible.

I'm all for Legalizing.. I'd prefer my money going to the Government than the Mafias down in Mexico.


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Foxfyre said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> right... it's been the Left, not the 'moral majority' waging the war on drugs this whole time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe what he is saying is that many on the Left, under the banner of freedom and liberty, want to be able to do what they want to do.  They want to smoke as much pot as they want or drink alcohol when and wherever they want without any government restraint.  Actually so do many on the right.
> 
> However some of those same folks want to prohibit others from engaging in activities deemed inappropriate or harmful or offensive.
> 
> So Citizen A wants freedom to do what they want to do, but want the government to prohibit Citizen B from doing stuff that Citizen A doesn't like.
> 
> And there is a disconnect in that don't you think?
Click to expand...


Bingo! These same Socialists/Progressives were absolutely gung-ho when the Clinton Administration was putting thousands of poor tobacco farmers out of business. That was all just one big lottery score for trial lawyers who donate heavily to the Democratic Party. Their ridiculous class-action lawsuits destroyed many poor farmers' lives. As usual,that was all "For our own Good." Was it though? Now these same people are screeching about "Freedom" when comes to smoking Marijuana? I actually get a little angry at these frauds. Freedom & Liberty is not about convenience. Now it's too late for those farmers who were shut down. How sad.


----------



## ABikerSailor

LibocalypseNow said:


> Not much. I do find it funny though that the Socialists/Progressives are now pushing to legalize Marijuana when it is they who are always pushing to ban cigarettes. My God,how many tobacco farmers have they put out of business? Remember all their "Evil Tobacco Company" rhetoric. Lots of shady lawyers sure did get rich off those class-action suits huh? Unfortunately they put a whole lot of poor farmers out of business in the process. You can't only support real Freedom & Liberty when it's convenient. What about all those poor farmers they put out of business? This is the main problem i have with the Socialists/Progressives who are now pushing to legalize Marijuana. Can't really trust them.



Ever watch how cigarettes are made?  There isn't a natural leaf tobacco piece in any of them, except the ones made by Native Americans.

RJR takes the leaf, chops it into a slurry, adds whole bunches of chemicals to it, then dries the slurry out in big sheets and then chops THAT up to put in the cigarettes.

No........there is nothing "natural" or "healthy" about cigarettes.  They're toxic.

Cannabis, on the other hand has been proven to help with Alzheimer's, is currently being researched for autism.  It's also been proven to be helpful in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

It's also proved pretty effective for PTSD and depression as well.

Now, considering the tax figures recently released to show that California made several MILLION dollars in tax on just medical marijuana dispensaries, they've calculated (based on the figures they had from medical marijuana) that it could be 1.5 BILLION DOLLARS/YEAR for tax if it was legal across the board.

Nobody has ever become addicted to cannabis.  Want proof?  Check out the Hindu medicine men in India who smoke pot continuously.

Pot was made illegal for racist reasons.  If you support the continued criminalization of cannabis, you are a racist as well.  Henry P. Anslinger and his propaganda film "Reefer Madness" did nothing but tell lies about the substance to scare people away from it.

Seems back then, the major consumers of pot were brown and black people, and Anslinger wanted a way to legally put them in jail, so he made their recreational substance illegal, knowing they would continue to smoke.

Additionally, the leftover plant material can be used to make oil, fabric, paper, and biofuel.

Why is it not legal already?

And, comparing the 3?  Well, the last 8 years of my Navy career, I was a Drug and Alcohol Program Advisor (DAPA).  Based on what I'd seen, as well as all the materials I'd studied, I could not see anything harmful about it.

6 months after I retired?  I researched it on the internet to decide if I wanted to or not.  I eventually did try it, and based on all the research that I've done, as well as in talking to many others who smoke as well, combined with all the research that I've read from Harvard Medical and the Royal British Medical Society and the US Government (read the Laguardia Report that was commissioned by Nixon), I can see no reason other than ignorance and racism for keeping it illegal.

Besides, it's easier at work when your co-worker went out and smoked cannabis rather than powering down a 12 pack and a bottle of Jack.

Hungover people are useless in the mornings, smokers aren't.


----------



## Foxfyre

ABikerSailor said:


> Nobody has ever become addicted to cannabis.  Want proof?  Check out the Hindu medicine men in India who smoke pot continuously.



Isn't there a thread on USMB somewhere citing the most ironic post of the day or something?   This one probably qualifies.

How in the world would anybody using ANY substance continuously prove that a substance was not addictive?


----------



## Tom Clancy

It's one of the reasons I buy Fine Cut Tobacco, smells and tastes great..

I roll it myself, and hell lot cheaper..

50G of Tobacco for about 2.5$.


----------



## Foxfyre

As for cannabis not being addictive, the evidence shows otherwise.

It is less addictive than nicotine in which 1 out of 2 regular users will become addicted, and the addiction is weaker than incurred with alcohol with which 1 out of 10 regular users will become addicted.  But about 9% of regular marijuana users do become addicted.



> Many users compare their daily cannabis habit with dependency on caffeine. The UK Department of Health summed it up neatly: "Cannabis is a weakly addictive drug but does induce dependence in a significant minority of regular users."
> 
> Around 9% of users become addicted (1), although some studies estimate that over 50% of users have "impaired control" over their use of cannabis. Of the 70 million Americans estimated to have tried the drug, around two million use it daily. There are numerous marijuana rehab centers offering treatment programs for those serious about moving past their dependency on pot. (2)
> 
> *tolerance*
> Tolerance builds up rapidly after a few doses and disappears rapidly after a couple of days of abstinence. Heavy users need as much as eight times higher doses to achieve the same psychoactive effects as regular users using smaller amounts. They still get stoned but not as powerfully.
> 
> One effect of cannabis you can't develop tolerance to is "the stimulatory effect on the appetite" or munchies.
> 
> *withdrawal*
> If you are a regular cannabis smoker (every day) and you stop smoking, you will experience some of the following withdrawal symptoms: restlessness, irritability, mild agitation, insomnia, nausea, sleep disturbance, sweats, and intense dreams. These symptoms, however, are mild and short-lived, lasting 2 to 4 days. (3)


http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/cannabis/addiction.htm


----------



## LibocalypseNow

ABikerSailor said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not much. I do find it funny though that the Socialists/Progressives are now pushing to legalize Marijuana when it is they who are always pushing to ban cigarettes. My God,how many tobacco farmers have they put out of business? Remember all their "Evil Tobacco Company" rhetoric. Lots of shady lawyers sure did get rich off those class-action suits huh? Unfortunately they put a whole lot of poor farmers out of business in the process. You can't only support real Freedom & Liberty when it's convenient. What about all those poor farmers they put out of business? This is the main problem i have with the Socialists/Progressives who are now pushing to legalize Marijuana. Can't really trust them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever watch how cigarettes are made?  There isn't a natural leaf tobacco piece in any of them, except the ones made by Native Americans.
> 
> RJR takes the leaf, chops it into a slurry, adds whole bunches of chemicals to it, then dries the slurry out in big sheets and then chops THAT up to put in the cigarettes.
> 
> No........there is nothing "natural" or "healthy" about cigarettes.  They're toxic.
> 
> Cannabis, on the other hand has been proven to help with Alzheimer's, is currently being researched for autism.  It's also been proven to be helpful in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.
> 
> It's also proved pretty effective for PTSD and depression as well.
> 
> Now, considering the tax figures recently released to show that California made several MILLION dollars in tax on just medical marijuana dispensaries, they've calculated (based on the figures they had from medical marijuana) that it could be 1.5 BILLION DOLLARS/YEAR for tax if it was legal across the board.
> 
> Nobody has ever become addicted to cannabis.  Want proof?  Check out the Hindu medicine men in India who smoke pot continuously.
> 
> Pot was made illegal for racist reasons.  If you support the continued criminalization of cannabis, you are a racist as well.  Henry P. Anslinger and his propaganda film "Reefer Madness" did nothing but tell lies about the substance to scare people away from it.
> 
> Seems back then, the major consumers of pot were brown and black people, and Anslinger wanted a way to legally put them in jail, so he made their recreational substance illegal, knowing they would continue to smoke.
> 
> Additionally, the leftover plant material can be used to make oil, fabric, paper, and biofuel.
> 
> Why is it not legal already?
> 
> And, comparing the 3?  Well, the last 8 years of my Navy career, I was a Drug and Alcohol Program Advisor (DAPA).  Based on what I'd seen, as well as all the materials I'd studied, I could not see anything harmful about it.
> 
> 6 months after I retired?  I researched it on the internet to decide if I wanted to or not.  I eventually did try it, and based on all the research that I've done, as well as in talking to many others who smoke as well, combined with all the research that I've read from Harvard Medical and the Royal British Medical Society and the US Government (read the Laguardia Report that was commissioned by Nixon), I can see no reason other than ignorance and racism for keeping it illegal.
> 
> Besides, it's easier at work when your co-worker went out and smoked cannabis rather than powering down a 12 pack and a bottle of Jack.
> 
> Hungover people are useless in the mornings, smokers aren't.
Click to expand...


"I can see no other reason other than ignorance and racism for keeping it illegal." My God,what has happened to our country? So it's all about "Racism?" Maybe you should put  your bong down and quit the ganja for awhile. You definitely don't need any more. Freedom & Liberty is not about convenience. You Socialists/Progressives should have been there when the lawyer scum were putting poor tobacco farmers out of business. You people don't have a leg to stand on.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Foxfyre said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has ever become addicted to cannabis.  Want proof?  Check out the Hindu medicine men in India who smoke pot continuously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't there a thread on USMB somewhere citing the most ironic post of the day or something?   This one probably qualifies.
> 
> How in the world would anybody using ANY substance continuously prove that a substance was not addictive?
Click to expand...


Because doctors and scientists have gone over there to check them out.  It seems that these Hindu holy men live on food and cannabis brought to them by others, and it is their job to offer up prayers while smoking.

Some come and join, others leave the order and go to do other things.  The ones that leave are the ones they check out, because they go from smoking continuously while they are awake to NOT smoking when they leave the order.

None had any physical or psychological ill effects.

THAT is how I know.  Not my fault you don't know that, but it's probably because you've already closed your mind off to investigation of cannabis.

Sorry about your prejudice and close mindedness.


----------



## Some Guy

Foxfyre said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has ever become addicted to cannabis.  Want proof?  Check out the Hindu medicine men in India who smoke pot continuously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't there a thread on USMB somewhere citing the most ironic post of the day or something?   This one probably qualifies.
> 
> How in the world would anybody using ANY substance continuously prove that a substance was not addictive?
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.




			
				ABikerSailor said:
			
		

> Ever watch how cigarettes are made? There isn't a natural leaf tobacco piece in any of them, except the ones made by Native Americans.
> 
> RJR takes the leaf, chops it into a slurry, adds whole bunches of chemicals to it, then dries the slurry out in big sheets and then chops THAT up to put in the cigarettes.
> 
> No........there is nothing "natural" or "healthy" about cigarettes. They're toxic.
> 
> Cannabis, on the other hand has been proven to help with Alzheimer's, is currently being researched for autism. It's also been proven to be helpful in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.
> 
> It's also proved pretty effective for PTSD and depression as well.
> 
> Now, considering the tax figures recently released to show that California made several MILLION dollars in tax on just medical marijuana dispensaries, they've calculated (based on the figures they had from medical marijuana) that it could be 1.5 BILLION DOLLARS/YEAR for tax if it was legal across the board.
> 
> Nobody has ever become addicted to cannabis. Want proof? Check out the Hindu medicine men in India who smoke pot continuously.
> 
> Pot was made illegal for racist reasons. If you support the continued criminalization of cannabis, you are a racist as well. Henry P. Anslinger and his propaganda film "Reefer Madness" did nothing but tell lies about the substance to scare people away from it.
> 
> Seems back then, the major consumers of pot were brown and black people, and Anslinger wanted a way to legally put them in jail, so he made their recreational substance illegal, knowing they would continue to smoke.
> 
> Additionally, the leftover plant material can be used to make oil, fabric, paper, and biofuel.
> 
> Why is it not legal already?
> 
> And, comparing the 3? Well, the last 8 years of my Navy career, I was a Drug and Alcohol Program Advisor (DAPA). Based on what I'd seen, as well as all the materials I'd studied, I could not see anything harmful about it.
> 
> 6 months after I retired? I researched it on the internet to decide if I wanted to or not. I eventually did try it, and based on all the research that I've done, as well as in talking to many others who smoke as well, combined with all the research that I've read from Harvard Medical and the Royal British Medical Society and the US Government (read the Laguardia Report that was commissioned by Nixon), I can see no reason other than ignorance and racism for keeping it illegal.
> 
> Besides, it's easier at work when your co-worker went out and smoked cannabis rather than powering down a 12 pack and a bottle of Jack.
> 
> Hungover people are useless in the mornings, smokers aren't.


Maybe you're right about why the law was put into place in the first place, but nowadays, i think marijuana is pretty universally loved by people from all races while also being disliked by people of all races.  I think your argument about being racist if you support criminalized marijuana is a stretch.

Otherwise, i agree with you.  I don't see why marijuana couldn't be legalized and controlled in much the same way as alcohol.


----------



## LibocalypseNow

One deranged Leftist here just claimed it's "Racist" to keep Marijuana illegal. More proof that pot does have an adverse effect on the human brain. It's true people. Yikes!


----------



## Foxfyre

ABikerSailor said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has ever become addicted to cannabis.  Want proof?  Check out the Hindu medicine men in India who smoke pot continuously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't there a thread on USMB somewhere citing the most ironic post of the day or something?   This one probably qualifies.
> 
> How in the world would anybody using ANY substance continuously prove that a substance was not addictive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because doctors and scientists have gone over there to check them out.  It seems that these Hindu holy men live on food and cannabis brought to them by others, and it is their job to offer up prayers while smoking.
> 
> Some come and join, others leave the order and go to do other things.  The ones that leave are the ones they check out, because they go from smoking continuously while they are awake to NOT smoking when they leave the order.
> 
> None had any physical or psychological ill effects.
> 
> THAT is how I know.  Not my fault you don't know that, but it's probably because you've already closed your mind off to investigation of cannabis.
> 
> Sorry about your prejudice and close mindedness.
Click to expand...


Well despite my prejudice and close mindedness, I provided a link to a reliable source to back up my opinion.

When you do that, I'll rethink my position.


----------



## Dr Gregg

Foxfyre said:


> As for cannabis not being addictive, the evidence shows otherwise.
> 
> It is less addictive than nicotine in which 1 out of 2 regular users will become addicted, and the addiction is weaker than incurred with alcohol with which 1 out of 10 regular users will become addicted.  But about 9% of regular marijuana users do become addicted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many users compare their daily cannabis habit with dependency on caffeine. The UK Department of Health summed it up neatly: "Cannabis is a weakly addictive drug but does induce dependence in a significant minority of regular users."
> 
> Around 9% of users become addicted (1), although some studies estimate that over 50% of users have "impaired control" over their use of cannabis. Of the 70 million Americans estimated to have tried the drug, around two million use it daily. There are numerous marijuana rehab centers offering treatment programs for those serious about moving past their dependency on pot. (2)
> 
> *tolerance*
> Tolerance builds up rapidly after a few doses and disappears rapidly after a couple of days of abstinence. Heavy users need as much as eight times higher doses to achieve the same psychoactive effects as regular users using smaller amounts. They still get stoned but not as powerfully.
> 
> One effect of cannabis you can't develop tolerance to is "the stimulatory effect on the appetite" or munchies.
> 
> *withdrawal*
> If you are a regular cannabis smoker (every day) and you stop smoking, you will experience some of the following withdrawal symptoms: restlessness, irritability, mild agitation, insomnia, nausea, sleep disturbance, sweats, and intense dreams. These symptoms, however, are mild and short-lived, lasting 2 to 4 days. (3)
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/cannabis/addiction.htm
Click to expand...


I've experienced none of those things from smoking daily to not smoking at all


----------



## Gunny

YoungLefty said:


> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.



You got a citation for your numbers?  Because they are full of shit.  While there ARE exceptions, most potheads I knew slaked their cotton mouth with their favorite cool, refreshing and alcohol-laden refreshing beverage.  You positive for alcohol they don't bother testing for anything else so any report on the topic is jaundiced at best.

I always noticed potheads are the ones that make this argument.  The fact is, both pot AND alcohol and many prescriptions for that matter, impair one's motor skills.  Period.


----------



## Foxfyre

Some Guy said:


> I don't see why marijuana couldn't be legalized and controlled in much the same way as alcohol.



The difference lies in the residual effect of both and the risk factors for the population as a whole.  Somebody stoned on marijuana is certainly no more dangerous to himself or the population as a whole than is somebody drunk on alcohol.

However, alcohol, even in high quanities, clears the system within 24 hours and any residual hangover lasts no more than another 24 hours.  Ergo, an airline pilot can be drunk as a skunk on Saturday night, and be perfectly sober and cleared for duty by Tuesday morning.  And there will be no blood alcohol detected.

Marijuana, however, remains detectable in the body for up to 30 days and there is no known test to determine when a person last used it or how impaired he or she might be.  And that makes it far more difficult to regulate than alcohol.   For that reason, if we legalize the stuff, and I am not opposed to that, I would want the authorities to back employers and regulatory processes to the hilt to have zero tolerance for marijuana use in all professions where a clear head and quick response time is important.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Some Guy said:


> Maybe you're right about why the law was put into place in the first place, but nowadays, i think marijuana is pretty universally loved by people from all races while also being disliked by people of all races.  I think your argument about being racist if you support criminalized marijuana is a stretch.
> 
> Otherwise, i agree with you.  I don't see why marijuana couldn't be legalized and controlled in much the same way as alcohol.



Ain't no "maybe" to it........



> Pre-criminalization (1600s1800s)
> 
> Hemp (a product of Cannabis sativa) was first brought to North America by the Puritans.
> 
> In the 17th century hemp was encouraged by the government in the production of rope, sails, and clothing; however, hemp use declined in the late eighteenth century. In the late nineteenth century, cannabis became a common ingredient in medicine and was openly sold at pharmacies.[2]
> [edit] Criminalization (1900s)
> 
> The first significant instance of cannabis regulation appeared in District of Columbia in 1906.[3]. Regulations of cannabis followed in Massachusetts (1911), New York (1914) and Maine (1914). Simultaneously the western states developed significant tensions regarding the influx of Mexicans to America. Later in that decade, negative tensions grew between the small farms and the large farms that used cheaper Mexican labor. Shortly after, the depression came which increased tensions, as jobs and resources soon became scarce. Many Mexicans commonly smoked marijuana and had brought the plant with them over the border.[citation needed] In 1913 California passed the first state marijuana law, criminalizing the preparation of hemp and its products, the phrase Indian Hemp is sometimes used or what was referred to as "loco weed". These laws were passed not due to any widespread use or concern about cannabis, but as regulatory initiatives to discourage future use.[4][5] Other states followed with marijuana prohibition laws, including Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and Nebraska (1927).



Legal history of cannabis in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tell you what.......if you really want to find out about this, rent the documentary "Grass" narrated by Woody Harrelson.

And, in the 1970's, Nixon commissioned a report called the Laguardia Report concerning cannabis, because he was looking to prove that pot was bad.

When the report came back favorable for marijuana?  Nixon threw it in the trash.

Ronald Reagan had Alzheimer's, and was really militant with his just say no campaign.  Too bad he didn't know that Alzheimer's can be helped by cannabis.  Maybe his later years wouldn't have been so messed up.

Nope.  Legalize it.  Carrie Nation taught us that prohibition doesn't work.


----------



## Foxfyre

Dr Gregg said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for cannabis not being addictive, the evidence shows otherwise.
> 
> It is less addictive than nicotine in which 1 out of 2 regular users will become addicted, and the addiction is weaker than incurred with alcohol with which 1 out of 10 regular users will become addicted.  But about 9% of regular marijuana users do become addicted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many users compare their daily cannabis habit with dependency on caffeine. The UK Department of Health summed it up neatly: "Cannabis is a weakly addictive drug but does induce dependence in a significant minority of regular users."
> 
> Around 9% of users become addicted (1), although some studies estimate that over 50% of users have "impaired control" over their use of cannabis. Of the 70 million Americans estimated to have tried the drug, around two million use it daily. There are numerous marijuana rehab centers offering treatment programs for those serious about moving past their dependency on pot. (2)
> 
> *tolerance*
> Tolerance builds up rapidly after a few doses and disappears rapidly after a couple of days of abstinence. Heavy users need as much as eight times higher doses to achieve the same psychoactive effects as regular users using smaller amounts. They still get stoned but not as powerfully.
> 
> One effect of cannabis you can't develop tolerance to is "the stimulatory effect on the appetite" or munchies.
> 
> *withdrawal*
> If you are a regular cannabis smoker (every day) and you stop smoking, you will experience some of the following withdrawal symptoms: restlessness, irritability, mild agitation, insomnia, nausea, sleep disturbance, sweats, and intense dreams. These symptoms, however, are mild and short-lived, lasting 2 to 4 days. (3)
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/cannabis/addiction.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've experienced none of those things from smoking daily to not smoking at all
Click to expand...


Are you sure?  We read your posts.


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Pot is not nearly the innocent & benign drug that the Pot Lobbyists are pushing. Pot Lobbyists are no different than any other Lobbyist in the end. They will lie to the politicians and claim that Pot is completely healthy and has absolutely no adverse health affects. They will continue to lie to the politicians the way all Lobbyists do until they get some legalization. I probably shouldn't bother to type this because i know it is likely to go over most peoples' heads here. I'm not being condescending,it's just the way it is. Oh well,here goes nothing...

Smoking Marijuana is not harmless. It actually causes several adverse health affects. Even the ancients such as our ancient Native Americans here even knew that you were not supposed to smoke these plants on a daily basis. They smoked these plants sporadically and on special occasions such as religious ceremonies and such. Even they knew then that if you sat around all day smoking these plants,you would likely die. Native Americans had to hunt to survive so they had to be very active people. Sitting around smoking all day every day,likely meant that they and their families would die. It really is common sense when you think about it. Pot is not the innocent & benign drug that so many are making it out to be. It just goes to show that all Lobbyists really are the same in the end. More lies than truths. Later.


----------



## Gunny

ABikerSailor said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not much. I do find it funny though that the Socialists/Progressives are now pushing to legalize Marijuana when it is they who are always pushing to ban cigarettes. My God,how many tobacco farmers have they put out of business? Remember all their "Evil Tobacco Company" rhetoric. Lots of shady lawyers sure did get rich off those class-action suits huh? Unfortunately they put a whole lot of poor farmers out of business in the process. You can't only support real Freedom & Liberty when it's convenient. What about all those poor farmers they put out of business? This is the main problem i have with the Socialists/Progressives who are now pushing to legalize Marijuana. Can't really trust them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever watch how cigarettes are made?  There isn't a natural leaf tobacco piece in any of them, except the ones made by Native Americans.
> 
> RJR takes the leaf, chops it into a slurry, adds whole bunches of chemicals to it, then dries the slurry out in big sheets and then chops THAT up to put in the cigarettes.
> 
> No........there is nothing "natural" or "healthy" about cigarettes.  They're toxic.
> 
> Cannabis, on the other hand has been proven to help with Alzheimer's, is currently being researched for autism.  It's also been proven to be helpful in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.
> 
> It's also proved pretty effective for PTSD and depression as well.
> 
> Now, considering the tax figures recently released to show that California made several MILLION dollars in tax on just medical marijuana dispensaries, they've calculated (based on the figures they had from medical marijuana) that it could be 1.5 BILLION DOLLARS/YEAR for tax if it was legal across the board.
> 
> Nobody has ever become addicted to cannabis.  Want proof?  Check out the Hindu medicine men in India who smoke pot continuously.
> 
> Pot was made illegal for racist reasons.  If you support the continued criminalization of cannabis, you are a racist as well.  Henry P. Anslinger and his propaganda film "Reefer Madness" did nothing but tell lies about the substance to scare people away from it.
> 
> Seems back then, the major consumers of pot were brown and black people, and Anslinger wanted a way to legally put them in jail, so he made their recreational substance illegal, knowing they would continue to smoke.
> 
> Additionally, the leftover plant material can be used to make oil, fabric, paper, and biofuel.
> 
> Why is it not legal already?
> 
> And, comparing the 3?  Well, the last 8 years of my Navy career, I was a Drug and Alcohol Program Advisor (DAPA).  Based on what I'd seen, as well as all the materials I'd studied, I could not see anything harmful about it.
> 
> 6 months after I retired?  I researched it on the internet to decide if I wanted to or not.  I eventually did try it, and based on all the research that I've done, as well as in talking to many others who smoke as well, combined with all the research that I've read from Harvard Medical and the Royal British Medical Society and the US Government (read the Laguardia Report that was commissioned by Nixon), I can see no reason other than ignorance and racism for keeping it illegal.
> 
> Besides, it's easier at work when your co-worker went out and smoked cannabis rather than powering down a 12 pack and a bottle of Jack.
> 
> Hungover people are useless in the mornings, smokers aren't.
Click to expand...


Who cares?  Name your poison, dude.  As in, you name yours, I'll name mine.  THAT is liberal.

Telling others what is best for them is fascist.


----------



## Gunny

ABikerSailor said:


> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you're right about why the law was put into place in the first place, but nowadays, i think marijuana is pretty universally loved by people from all races while also being disliked by people of all races.  I think your argument about being racist if you support criminalized marijuana is a stretch.
> 
> Otherwise, i agree with you.  I don't see why marijuana couldn't be legalized and controlled in much the same way as alcohol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ain't no "maybe" to it........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-criminalization (1600s1800s)
> 
> Hemp (a product of Cannabis sativa) was first brought to North America by the Puritans.
> 
> In the 17th century hemp was encouraged by the government in the production of rope, sails, and clothing; however, hemp use declined in the late eighteenth century. In the late nineteenth century, cannabis became a common ingredient in medicine and was openly sold at pharmacies.[2]
> [edit] Criminalization (1900s)
> 
> The first significant instance of cannabis regulation appeared in District of Columbia in 1906.[3]. Regulations of cannabis followed in Massachusetts (1911), New York (1914) and Maine (1914). Simultaneously the western states developed significant tensions regarding the influx of Mexicans to America. Later in that decade, negative tensions grew between the small farms and the large farms that used cheaper Mexican labor. Shortly after, the depression came which increased tensions, as jobs and resources soon became scarce. Many Mexicans commonly smoked marijuana and had brought the plant with them over the border.[citation needed] In 1913 California passed the first state marijuana law, criminalizing the preparation of hemp and its products, the phrase Indian Hemp is sometimes used or what was referred to as "loco weed". These laws were passed not due to any widespread use or concern about cannabis, but as regulatory initiatives to discourage future use.[4][5] Other states followed with marijuana prohibition laws, including Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and Nebraska (1927).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legal history of cannabis in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Tell you what.......if you really want to find out about this, rent the documentary "Grass" narrated by Woody Harrelson.
> 
> And, in the 1970's, Nixon commissioned a report called the Laguardia Report concerning cannabis, because he was looking to prove that pot was bad.
> 
> When the report came back favorable for marijuana?  Nixon threw it in the trash.
> 
> Ronald Reagan had Alzheimer's, and was really militant with his just say no campaign.  Too bad he didn't know that Alzheimer's can be helped by cannabis.  Maybe his later years wouldn't have been so messed up.
> 
> Nope.  Legalize it.  Carrie Nation taught us that prohibition doesn't work.
Click to expand...


So which  report was it that's been the ongoing villification of tobacco?  I love that second hand smoke theory.  You suck in more carbon monoxide at a metro bus stop in 15 minutes than you will being stuck in a closet with a chain smoker.

Pot makes people lazy.  It impairs their motor skills, thus impairing their judgment.  I'm not saying any one is better than the other -- for clarification -- only that pot smokers spend a LOT of time trying to say pot is less dangerous.

BS.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Gunny said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not much. I do find it funny though that the Socialists/Progressives are now pushing to legalize Marijuana when it is they who are always pushing to ban cigarettes. My God,how many tobacco farmers have they put out of business? Remember all their "Evil Tobacco Company" rhetoric. Lots of shady lawyers sure did get rich off those class-action suits huh? Unfortunately they put a whole lot of poor farmers out of business in the process. You can't only support real Freedom & Liberty when it's convenient. What about all those poor farmers they put out of business? This is the main problem i have with the Socialists/Progressives who are now pushing to legalize Marijuana. Can't really trust them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever watch how cigarettes are made?  There isn't a natural leaf tobacco piece in any of them, except the ones made by Native Americans.
> 
> RJR takes the leaf, chops it into a slurry, adds whole bunches of chemicals to it, then dries the slurry out in big sheets and then chops THAT up to put in the cigarettes.
> 
> No........there is nothing "natural" or "healthy" about cigarettes.  They're toxic.
> 
> Cannabis, on the other hand has been proven to help with Alzheimer's, is currently being researched for autism.  It's also been proven to be helpful in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.
> 
> It's also proved pretty effective for PTSD and depression as well.
> 
> Now, considering the tax figures recently released to show that California made several MILLION dollars in tax on just medical marijuana dispensaries, they've calculated (based on the figures they had from medical marijuana) that it could be 1.5 BILLION DOLLARS/YEAR for tax if it was legal across the board.
> 
> Nobody has ever become addicted to cannabis.  Want proof?  Check out the Hindu medicine men in India who smoke pot continuously.
> 
> Pot was made illegal for racist reasons.  If you support the continued criminalization of cannabis, you are a racist as well.  Henry P. Anslinger and his propaganda film "Reefer Madness" did nothing but tell lies about the substance to scare people away from it.
> 
> Seems back then, the major consumers of pot were brown and black people, and Anslinger wanted a way to legally put them in jail, so he made their recreational substance illegal, knowing they would continue to smoke.
> 
> Additionally, the leftover plant material can be used to make oil, fabric, paper, and biofuel.
> 
> Why is it not legal already?
> 
> And, comparing the 3?  Well, the last 8 years of my Navy career, I was a Drug and Alcohol Program Advisor (DAPA).  Based on what I'd seen, as well as all the materials I'd studied, I could not see anything harmful about it.
> 
> 6 months after I retired?  I researched it on the internet to decide if I wanted to or not.  I eventually did try it, and based on all the research that I've done, as well as in talking to many others who smoke as well, combined with all the research that I've read from Harvard Medical and the Royal British Medical Society and the US Government (read the Laguardia Report that was commissioned by Nixon), I can see no reason other than ignorance and racism for keeping it illegal.
> 
> Besides, it's easier at work when your co-worker went out and smoked cannabis rather than powering down a 12 pack and a bottle of Jack.
> 
> Hungover people are useless in the mornings, smokers aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?  Name your poison, dude.  As in, you name yours, I'll name mine.  THAT is liberal.
> 
> Telling others what is best for them is fascist.
Click to expand...


I didn't say what was or wasn't best for them.  I told them what I'd experienced as a DAPA and a bartender at a biker bar.

Most of the fights were because of alcohol or some other substance besides pot.  The people who smoked pot only out back?  Not a lick of trouble, and pretty decent tippers, because most of them would eat the chow we served.

Incidentally, there are several people (one of which is my friend Jim who is a computer technician), who are anything BUT lazy and they smoke all the time.


----------



## California Girl

JBeukema said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that anyone who feels so insecure that they need to dissect a post word for word to respond is a little bit pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> anyone who gets so upset by having their claims refuted that they result to such lame attempts at an attacks shouldn't bother posting in the first place
Click to expand...


Refute what you like, I honestly don't care. What you put into your body is not my business - until you make it mine, by affecting me and mine. Other than that, I am not at all interested in the damage that drugs or alcohol do to an individual. It is of no concern to me. I simply don't care what other people choose to do.... UNTIL IT AFFECTS ME AND MINE.


----------



## California Girl

Dr Gregg said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for cannabis not being addictive, the evidence shows otherwise.
> 
> It is less addictive than nicotine in which 1 out of 2 regular users will become addicted, and the addiction is weaker than incurred with alcohol with which 1 out of 10 regular users will become addicted.  But about 9% of regular marijuana users do become addicted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many users compare their daily cannabis habit with dependency on caffeine. The UK Department of Health summed it up neatly: "Cannabis is a weakly addictive drug but does induce dependence in a significant minority of regular users."
> 
> Around 9% of users become addicted (1), although some studies estimate that over 50% of users have "impaired control" over their use of cannabis. Of the 70 million Americans estimated to have tried the drug, around two million use it daily. There are numerous marijuana rehab centers offering treatment programs for those serious about moving past their dependency on pot. (2)
> 
> *tolerance*
> Tolerance builds up rapidly after a few doses and disappears rapidly after a couple of days of abstinence. Heavy users need as much as eight times higher doses to achieve the same psychoactive effects as regular users using smaller amounts. They still get stoned but not as powerfully.
> 
> One effect of cannabis you can't develop tolerance to is "the stimulatory effect on the appetite" or munchies.
> 
> *withdrawal*
> If you are a regular cannabis smoker (every day) and you stop smoking, you will experience some of the following withdrawal symptoms: restlessness, irritability, mild agitation, insomnia, nausea, sleep disturbance, sweats, and intense dreams. These symptoms, however, are mild and short-lived, lasting 2 to 4 days. (3)
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/cannabis/addiction.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've experienced none of those things from smoking daily to not smoking at all
Click to expand...


So, because you have not experienced these effects, they effects don't exist? What a fucking moron. Drugs affect different people differently.... Growing UK research suggests a strong link between pot and paranoia. Does that mean everyone who does it will suffer from paranoia? No. But, it means that it can act as a trigger in some people.


----------



## Gunny

ABikerSailor said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever watch how cigarettes are made?  There isn't a natural leaf tobacco piece in any of them, except the ones made by Native Americans.
> 
> RJR takes the leaf, chops it into a slurry, adds whole bunches of chemicals to it, then dries the slurry out in big sheets and then chops THAT up to put in the cigarettes.
> 
> No........there is nothing "natural" or "healthy" about cigarettes.  They're toxic.
> 
> Cannabis, on the other hand has been proven to help with Alzheimer's, is currently being researched for autism.  It's also been proven to be helpful in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.
> 
> It's also proved pretty effective for PTSD and depression as well.
> 
> Now, considering the tax figures recently released to show that California made several MILLION dollars in tax on just medical marijuana dispensaries, they've calculated (based on the figures they had from medical marijuana) that it could be 1.5 BILLION DOLLARS/YEAR for tax if it was legal across the board.
> 
> Nobody has ever become addicted to cannabis.  Want proof?  Check out the Hindu medicine men in India who smoke pot continuously.
> 
> Pot was made illegal for racist reasons.  If you support the continued criminalization of cannabis, you are a racist as well.  Henry P. Anslinger and his propaganda film "Reefer Madness" did nothing but tell lies about the substance to scare people away from it.
> 
> Seems back then, the major consumers of pot were brown and black people, and Anslinger wanted a way to legally put them in jail, so he made their recreational substance illegal, knowing they would continue to smoke.
> 
> Additionally, the leftover plant material can be used to make oil, fabric, paper, and biofuel.
> 
> Why is it not legal already?
> 
> And, comparing the 3?  Well, the last 8 years of my Navy career, I was a Drug and Alcohol Program Advisor (DAPA).  Based on what I'd seen, as well as all the materials I'd studied, I could not see anything harmful about it.
> 
> 6 months after I retired?  I researched it on the internet to decide if I wanted to or not.  I eventually did try it, and based on all the research that I've done, as well as in talking to many others who smoke as well, combined with all the research that I've read from Harvard Medical and the Royal British Medical Society and the US Government (read the Laguardia Report that was commissioned by Nixon), I can see no reason other than ignorance and racism for keeping it illegal.
> 
> Besides, it's easier at work when your co-worker went out and smoked cannabis rather than powering down a 12 pack and a bottle of Jack.
> 
> Hungover people are useless in the mornings, smokers aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?  Name your poison, dude.  As in, you name yours, I'll name mine.  THAT is liberal.
> 
> Telling others what is best for them is fascist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say what was or wasn't best for them.  I told them what I'd experienced as a DAPA and a bartender at a biker bar.
> 
> Most of the fights were because of alcohol or some other substance besides pot.  The people who smoked pot only out back?  Not a lick of trouble, and pretty decent tippers, because most of them would eat the chow we served.
> 
> Incidentally, there are several people (one of which is my friend Jim who is a computer technician), who are anything BUT lazy and they smoke all the time.
Click to expand...


Was a the bouncer at that biker bar?

I hate to point this out, but I probably put more weed through a bong before I was 20 than you have to date.  The personality determines the behavior, the intoxicant merely exacerbates it in one way or the other.  

Define "lazy".  You don't have to get off your ass and do anything to be a computer tech and I'm well aware some people can function better in certain circumstances coupled with their intoxicant of choice.  The basic symptoms for each and every intoxicant didn't come out of nowhere.

Nothing cracked me up more than sitting through Sociology, stoned out of my gourd, watching "Reefer Madness".  

I'm not selling anything.  Point is, when you get out of bed in the morning you put yourself at risk.  When you CHOOSE to engage in risky behavior, it's heightened even more.  The facts remain as I stated ... intoxicants inhibit ones motor skills; therefore, inhibiting their judgment.  People die all the time.

My argument was against the OP that was a total, one-sided promotional ploy for potheads. 

Conversely, I have always made the same argument from the other POV.  Pot's no worse than alcohol.  The government is stupid for keeping it illegal when they could package it and tax the Hell out of it like they do gas and alcohol.  Just as during Prohibition, the only people profiting from it being illegal are the gangsters.  People are using it anyway.


----------



## Oscar Wao

LibocalypseNow said:


> One deranged Leftist here just claimed it's "Racist" to keep Marijuana illegal. More proof that pot does have an adverse effect on the human brain. It's true people. Yikes!


The origins of weed criminalization are racist.  Look it up.


----------



## Some Guy

Foxfyre said:


> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see why marijuana couldn't be legalized and controlled in much the same way as alcohol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference lies in the residual effect of both and the risk factors for the population as a whole.  Somebody stoned on marijuana is certainly no more dangerous to himself or the population as a whole than is somebody drunk on alcohol.
> 
> However, alcohol, even in high quanities, clears the system within 24 hours and any residual hangover lasts no more than another 24 hours.  Ergo, an airline pilot can be drunk as a skunk on Saturday night, and be perfectly sober and cleared for duty by Tuesday morning.  And there will be no blood alcohol detected.
> 
> Marijuana, however, remains detectable in the body for up to 30 days and there is no known test to determine when a person last used it or how impaired he or she might be.  And that makes it far more difficult to regulate than alcohol.   For that reason, if we legalize the stuff, and I am not opposed to that, I would want the authorities to back employers and regulatory processes to the hilt to have zero tolerance for marijuana use in all professions where a clear head and quick response time is important.
Click to expand...

I know it stick around in your system but what's the real effect?  I've never smoked pot before but i've never seen someone smoke up and then be stoned the next day.  So while it may be in their system, i highly doubt it affects them 24 hours after having done it.  Alcohol, while maybe clearing from your system in 24 hours, can definitely have effects beyond that time frame.  I've 2-3 day hangovers before after drinking way too much, and those would definitely affects my reaction time.

You'll probably be hard pressed to find anyone who would be in favor of letting people who smoke pot fly planes or operate heavy machinery, so companies who employ such people would definitely need to be allowed to enforce their own rules, and if that's monthly drug tests requiring a perfectly clean system, then i'd be all for it.  When i said controlled like alcohol, i meant requiring someone to be of a certain age, with obvious DUI ramifications, etc etc.  Obviously you couldn't use the exact same protocols but surely you could put some pretty effective protocols in place that would be a lot easier to enforce than just making it universally illegal.


----------



## JBeukema

LibocalypseNow said:


> "I can see no other reason other than ignorance and racism for keeping it illegal." My God,what has happened to our country? So it's all about "Racism?"




This is what's happened? You cite the facts about why it was made illegal and idits like Lib get hysterical?


----------



## JBeukema

Foxfyre said:


> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see why marijuana couldn't be legalized and controlled in much the same way as alcohol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference lies in the residual effect of both and the risk factors for the population as a whole.  Somebody stoned on marijuana is certainly no more dangerous to himself or the population as a whole than is somebody drunk on alcohol.
> 
> However, alcohol, even in high quanities, clears the system within 24 hours and any residual hangover lasts no more than another 24 hours.  Ergo, an airline pilot can be drunk as a skunk on Saturday night, and be perfectly sober and cleared for duty by Tuesday morning.  And there will be no blood alcohol detected.
> 
> Marijuana, however, remains detectable in the body for up to 30 days and there is no known test to determine when a person last used it or how impaired he or she might be.  And that makes it far more difficult to regulate than alcohol.   For that reason, if we legalize the stuff, and I am not opposed to that, I would want the authorities to back employers and regulatory processes to the hilt to have zero tolerance for marijuana use in all professions where a clear head and quick response time is important.
Click to expand...



'remains in the body' =/= 'still high'

all it means is that it can be detected because THC is fat-soluble, while alcohol is water-soluble


----------



## geauxtohell

LibocalypseNow said:


> One deranged Leftist here just claimed it's "Racist" to keep Marijuana illegal. More proof that pot does have an adverse effect on the human brain. It's true people. Yikes!



Actually, the roots of MJ being made illegal very much had racist motivations behind them.

The disparity in the sentencing guidelines for drug possession do as well, which is why many state high courts are changing the sentences of people convicted for crack to be more in line of someone who was convicted for cocaine.


----------



## Foxfyre

Some Guy said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see why marijuana couldn't be legalized and controlled in much the same way as alcohol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference lies in the residual effect of both and the risk factors for the population as a whole.  Somebody stoned on marijuana is certainly no more dangerous to himself or the population as a whole than is somebody drunk on alcohol.
> 
> However, alcohol, even in high quanities, clears the system within 24 hours and any residual hangover lasts no more than another 24 hours.  Ergo, an airline pilot can be drunk as a skunk on Saturday night, and be perfectly sober and cleared for duty by Tuesday morning.  And there will be no blood alcohol detected.
> 
> Marijuana, however, remains detectable in the body for up to 30 days and there is no known test to determine when a person last used it or how impaired he or she might be.  And that makes it far more difficult to regulate than alcohol.   For that reason, if we legalize the stuff, and I am not opposed to that, I would want the authorities to back employers and regulatory processes to the hilt to have zero tolerance for marijuana use in all professions where a clear head and quick response time is important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it stick around in your system but what's the real effect?  I've never smoked pot before but i've never seen someone smoke up and then be stoned the next day.  So while it may be in their system, i highly doubt it affects them 24 hours after having done it.  Alcohol, while maybe clearing from your system in 24 hours, can definitely have effects beyond that time frame.  I've 2-3 day hangovers before after drinking way too much, and those would definitely affects my reaction time.
> 
> You'll probably be hard pressed to find anyone who would be in favor of letting people who smoke pot fly planes or operate heavy machinery, so companies who employ such people would definitely need to be allowed to enforce their own rules, and if that's monthly drug tests requiring a perfectly clean system, then i'd be all for it.  When i said controlled like alcohol, i meant requiring someone to be of a certain age, with obvious DUI ramifications, etc etc.  Obviously you couldn't use the exact same protocols but surely you could put some pretty effective protocols in place that would be a lot easier to enforce than just making it universally illegal.
Click to expand...


From what I've been taught, the fact that it is detectable in the body does not necessarily mean the person is impaired.  Once the psychological/physical effects wear off, the person probably isn't significantly impaired even though cannabis is still detectable in the body.

The problem is, there is no way to know how recently the person used the substance and therefore no way to know how impaired he or she is likely to be or not be.  And it is for that reason that there is a risk short of a zero tolerance policy.

I'm not saying don't make the stuff legal.  I am saying support strong and enforceable policies by employers and regulatory agencies for zero tolerance re cannabis use.


----------



## JBeukema

LibocalypseNow said:


> health affects. Even the ancients such as our ancient Native Americans here even knew that you were not supposed to smoke these plants on a daily basis.






> They smoked these plants sporadically and on special occasions such as religious ceremonies and such. Even they knew then that if you sat around all day smoking these plants,you would likely die.



see my earlier posts about the total lack of any medical evidence supporting your lies


----------



## Father Time

saveliberty said:


> The federal government wants to regulate your sugar and salt intake.  Marijuana is certainly a reasonable substance to regulate by that standard.



First of all why should we use that standard?

Second the government doesn't even want to ban all salt or all sugar so that standard would still demand it be legalized.



saveliberty said:


> The premise of the thread is false.  It is also interesting to see how unmellow you stoners are when it comes to discussing this issue.  It is illegal for good reason.



Which is?



saveliberty said:


> Take your energy and passion using it to end cigarette use and limit alcohol use.  That would be far more helpful and productive.



I think we can decide what causes we're going to fight for, free speech and all that. Also who says we can't do both?


----------



## JBeukema

California Girl said:


> Refute what you like, I honestly don't care.



We know- you've never cared about facts.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Interestingly enough, the effects of continued heavy drinking last for up to 5 years after stopping drinking.

Takes about 2 weeks to completely detox off alcohol addiction.

Takes about 6 months to a full year for the body to get back to complete normal.

Cannabis doesn't have those ill effects, nor does it stay in you for over a month, and that is if you are mostly sedentary and fat, because THC is fat soluble.


----------



## Father Time

saveliberty said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government wants to regulate your sugar and salt intake.  Marijuana is certainly a reasonable substance to regulate by that standard.  Your weak arguments about marijuana not killing you it was the fall or the car crash is laughable.  Sort of like saying the heart attack killed you, not the excess weigh, smoking, lack of exercise and so on.  They are called contributing factors folks.
> 
> The premise of the thread is false.  It is also interesting to see how unmellow you stoners are when it comes to discussing this issue.  It is illegal for good reason.  Take your energy and passion using it to end cigarette use and limit alcohol use.  That would be far more helpful and productive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you read what you post and revise it.
> 1.  The federal government did not ban sugar or salt.  Buy as much as you want at the market and stuff yourself.
> 2.  MJ is not regulated (as is alcohol); MJ is a schedule I drug.
> 3.  A queston is not a premise.
> 4.  As a non-stoner, you also seem to be unmellow.
> 5.  List the good reasons for it being 'illegal'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said sugar or salt was banned.  You read okay?  Marijuana certainly is regulated, just what is a schedule drug, if not regulated?  The question was phrased in a premise format.  You don't have the slightest idea of my disposition. * There are many good reasons, go find them yourself, don't waste my time.*
Click to expand...


NAME ONE!

You're the one who said there's good reasons, it's not our job to back up _your_ points. That's _your_ job.


----------



## Oscar Wao

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iifGYnffrBI"]YouTube - Drug War's Racist Roots? - Ethan Nadelmann[/ame]

To prove that we aren't talking out of our butts with this point


----------



## ABikerSailor

JBeukema said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> health affects. Even the ancients such as our ancient Native Americans here even knew that you were not supposed to smoke these plants on a daily basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They smoked these plants sporadically and on special occasions such as religious ceremonies and such. Even they knew then that if you sat around all day smoking these plants,you would likely die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> see my earlier posts about the total lack of any medical evidence supporting your lies
Click to expand...


Wonder if A Pack of Lips Howling knows that the tomahawk used by the Native Americans was quite often a pipe?

Wonder if he also knows that they smoked DAILY?

Keep up the good works A Pack of Lips Howling.........Your ignorance is continuous and strong.


----------



## JBeukema

Father Time said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The premise of the thread is false.  It is also interesting to see how unmellow you stoners are when it comes to discussing this issue.  It is illegal for good reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is?
Click to expand...

oil

paper

and those fucking mexican pieces of shit wetback offbrand brown people smoke it and they're evil brown people so anything they do must be of the devil, you mexican-loving communist bastard, don't you know China gave marijuana to the Mexicans so they could  _*DESTROY AMERICA!!*_

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sknoKWsVlAA&feature=related]YouTube - Grass: The History Of Marijuana[/ame]


----------



## Gunny

ABikerSailor said:


> Interestingly enough, the effects of continued heavy drinking last for up to 5 years after stopping drinking.
> 
> Takes about 2 weeks to completely detox off alcohol addiction.
> 
> Takes about 6 months to a full year for the body to get back to complete normal.
> 
> Cannabis doesn't have those ill effects, nor does it stay in you for over a month, and that is if you are mostly sedentary and fat, because THC is fat soluble.



Yeah, right.  You can pop positive for THC for up to 6 months.


----------



## California Girl

JBeukema said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refute what you like, I honestly don't care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know- you've never cared about facts.
> 
> You never finished that quote, btw.
Click to expand...


Are you gonna be a moron all your life? Just curious. What I care about is stating my opinion, if necessary, I'll back it up with evidence but mostly it isn't necessary. That you cannot distinguish between fact and opinion is not surprising.


----------



## Father Time

California Girl said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I drink about three times a year, if that. And by 'drink', I mean I have a couple - never get get hammered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck do you do then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THANK SWEET LORD JESUS. There's no telling how many lives you've saved already. Keep it up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I'd like to see the death penalty for any driver who kills someone whilst under the influence of drink or drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because when people kill out of negligence - they should be put down like dogs
> 
> When corporations kill out of negligence - we should buy more of their products to help them out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am happy with my life, I don't need to 'escape' from reality with drink or drugs.
> 
> Driving under the influence is not 'negligence', it is premeditated murder.
Click to expand...




You must be high or drunk it's hard to tell.

It's manslaughter and nothing even close to premeditated murder because they don't kill people on purpose. Hell they may not even kill someone when they drive drunk.


----------



## geauxtohell

LibocalypseNow said:


> Lots of sleazy Lawyers got rich while lots of poor tobacco farmers were put out of business.



Oh yeah, everyone hates sleazy lawyers until they need one.  Big Tobacco acted on bad faith for decades and suppressed information that they knew their product was harming people and highly addictive.  What did they do?  Suppress it and try and market to younger crowds to cover their clients who were going to invariably die at a younger age.  

They deserved what they got.  I am sympathetic to the farmers, but it doesn't change the fact that they were on the supply end for the most carcinogenic consumer product on the market.  

Bladder cancer is rare.  One of the few associations with lifestyle and bladder cancer is smoking.  How does something you inhale end up being oncogenic to your bladder?  Beats the fuck out of me, but it goes to show how poisonous tobacco is.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a puritan on it.  I enjoy a smoke here and there, but when I smoke I know it's bad for me.  



> That has been the resulting reality of your Socialist/Progressive crusade against the "Evil Tobacco Companies."



That and morbidity/mortality behind smoking as well as the massive healthcare costs the taxpayers incur to treat medicaid/medicare patients who smoked.  

In fact, in light of those much greater societal harms, I'd say that the trial lawyers were of fairly low consequence.



> Now you guys want to legalize Marijuana? I'm sorry but i just can't trust you guys at this point. You should support real Freedom & Liberty all the time and not just when it's convenient for you. Your motives have to be questioned on this. It is what it is.



When has anyone's freedom and liberty been hindered?  People just want corporations to act in good faith and give the FDA the good, bad, and ugly behind their product.  When they cover that information up, it's a civil wrong and their asses deserve to be sued.


----------



## geauxtohell

JBeukema said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that anyone who feels so insecure that they need to dissect a post word for word to respond is a little bit pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> anyone who gets so upset by having their claims refuted that they result to such lame attempts at an attacks shouldn't bother posting in the first place
Click to expand...


Yeah!  It's not like "words" have meaning or anything silly like that!


----------



## Father Time

saveliberty said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to get down to "facts" on this subject, none of the three things mentioned are any good for you the way MOST people actually use them. * To see them go on and on about the burden they bear from the laws is quite immature and selfish as near as I can see.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your handle is 'saveliberty' - what a fucking hypocrite you are. What you mean is "save MY liberty and FUCK everyone else's"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your liberty to function at a diminished capacity while driving or at work?  To have health related issues from its use that I get to pay for?  The crime that is commited in the name of a "harmless" drug?  You over stepped your liberty pal.
Click to expand...


That's right we should totally keep alcohol illegal.

Oh wait I thought it was still 1931. What were we talking about again?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Gunny said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, the effects of continued heavy drinking last for up to 5 years after stopping drinking.
> 
> Takes about 2 weeks to completely detox off alcohol addiction.
> 
> Takes about 6 months to a full year for the body to get back to complete normal.
> 
> Cannabis doesn't have those ill effects, nor does it stay in you for over a month, and that is if you are mostly sedentary and fat, because THC is fat soluble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right.  You can pop positive for THC for up to 6 months.
Click to expand...


No, you can't Gunny.  I know this from DAPA sources, as well as practical demonstrations at MEPS for every applicant that we piss tested over the 2 years I was there.

Longest I'd ever seen it go for was 3 weeks.  Recruiters will "unofficially" test an applicant back at their station until they finally piss clean, and then bring them to MEPS to be processed.


----------



## Gunny

Oscar Wao said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> One deranged Leftist here just claimed it's "Racist" to keep Marijuana illegal. More proof that pot does have an adverse effect on the human brain. It's true people. Yikes!
> 
> 
> 
> The origins of weed criminalization are racist.  Look it up.
Click to expand...


Incorrect.  While your argument DOES have merit, it was not the origin, nor the sole basis.  The biggest problem with weed is it competes with a firmly entrenched alcohol lobby than ensures it stays illegal.  Blaming things on blacks during the heyday of Klan was SOP.  It was just a cover for the real culprit  -- corporate profit.


----------



## Father Time

saveliberty said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy with my life, I don't need to 'escape' from reality with drink or drugs.
> 
> Driving under the influence is not 'negligence', it is premeditated murder. They are aware of the risk to others and choose to do it anyway. So, yep, they should be put down....
> 
> 
> 
> ....Es*pecially* if they're *alcoholics*, right??
> 
> *Then*, we could *keep* regressing....and, start burning epileptics, at the stake (again), for being *possessed!!!*
> 
> What a _wonderful, little World_ it'd be, if we could exterm...er, _eliminate_ *ALL* sick-people*!!!* (...The-sooner-the-*better**!!*)
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you consider allowing those under the influence killing innocent people progress?  Further, you don't want to discourage the activity by instituting a large penalty?
> 
> You can kill someone and pay less than $4,000.
Click to expand...


So you're resorting to straw men?

Show us one person that said driving while high should be legal.


----------



## blu

Gunny said:


> Oscar Wao said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> One deranged Leftist here just claimed it's "Racist" to keep Marijuana illegal. More proof that pot does have an adverse effect on the human brain. It's true people. Yikes!
> 
> 
> 
> The origins of weed criminalization are racist.  Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  While your argument DOES have merit, it was not the origin, nor the sole basis.  The biggest problem with weed is it competes with a firmly entrenched alcohol lobby than ensures it stays illegal.  Blaming things on blacks during the heyday of Klan was SOP.  It was just a cover for the real culprit  -- corporate profit.
Click to expand...


indeed, close to what i said as well


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see why marijuana couldn't be legalized and controlled in much the same way as alcohol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference lies in the residual effect of both and the risk factors for the population as a whole.  Somebody stoned on marijuana is certainly no more dangerous to himself or the population as a whole than is somebody drunk on alcohol.
> 
> However, alcohol, even in high quanities, clears the system within 24 hours and any residual hangover lasts no more than another 24 hours.  Ergo, an airline pilot can be drunk as a skunk on Saturday night, and be perfectly sober and cleared for duty by Tuesday morning.  And there will be no blood alcohol detected.
> 
> Marijuana, however, remains detectable in the body for up to 30 days and there is no known test to determine when a person last used it or how impaired he or she might be.  And that makes it far more difficult to regulate than alcohol.   For that reason, if we legalize the stuff, and I am not opposed to that, I would want the authorities to back employers and regulatory processes to the hilt to have zero tolerance for marijuana use in all professions where a clear head and quick response time is important.
Click to expand...


Alcohol is one of the few drugs that functions on zero order kinetics.  That means the rate of metabolism is affected by time and time alone (as opposed to dosage or other factors).  That's why hospitals are generally moving away from pumping stomachs.  By the time someone is so intoxicated that they are brought to the hospital, the alcohol is already in their blood/liver and out of their stomach.  The only think you can do is keep their airway clear.  There is no antidote (unlike opiates, benzos, etc).

The effect of pot wears off in hours, but a person will come up "hot" because THC is fat soluble and not water soluble like alcohol (metabolized to acetic acid).  That doesn't mean the person is still high, they just have enough molecules hiding out in their fat and are gradually excreting it out of their urine over a longer period of time.


----------



## geauxtohell

California Girl said:


> So, because you have not experienced these effects, they effects don't exist? What a fucking moron. Drugs affect different people differently.... Growing UK research suggests a strong link between pot and paranoia. Does that mean everyone who does it will suffer from paranoia? No. But, it means that it can act as a trigger in some people.



You mean pot and psychosis.  No one has ever disputed that pot makes people paranoid as a side effect.  That's transient.  The psychosis is in the form of schizophrenia and is permanent.  Though the correlation wasn't strong, but it does appear that chronic MJ use can trigger schizophrenia in people who were predispositioned to it.

That being said, it's really hard to support that since we don't even know the pathophysiology of schizophrenia.


----------



## geauxtohell

ABikerSailor said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, the effects of continued heavy drinking last for up to 5 years after stopping drinking.
> 
> Takes about 2 weeks to completely detox off alcohol addiction.
> 
> Takes about 6 months to a full year for the body to get back to complete normal.
> 
> Cannabis doesn't have those ill effects, nor does it stay in you for over a month, and that is if you are mostly sedentary and fat, because THC is fat soluble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right.  You can pop positive for THC for up to 6 months.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can't Gunny.  I know this from DAPA sources, as well as practical demonstrations at MEPS for every applicant that we piss tested over the 2 years I was there.
> 
> Longest I'd ever seen it go for was 3 weeks.  Recruiters will "unofficially" test an applicant back at their station until they finally piss clean, and then bring them to MEPS to be processed.
Click to expand...


I think it would depend on how sensitive the micron count was set too.  I know the government's is pretty liberal, meaning that if the threshold for being "positive" is 1000 microns and a person's urine had 999 microns of thc in it, they would come out as negative.  If you set the test at, say one micron, everyone would be positive because the body makes endogenous canniboids (in low doses).


----------



## JBeukema

JBeukema said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refute what you like, I honestly don't care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know- you've never cared about facts.
Click to expand...




			
				California Girl said:
			
		

> Hi, you have received -165 reputation points from  California Girl.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.




Ouch.

Don't like being called out?


----------



## JBeukema

Father Time said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....Es*pecially* if they're *alcoholics*, right??
> 
> *Then*, we could *keep* regressing....and, start burning epileptics, at the stake (again), for being *possessed!!!*
> 
> What a _wonderful, little World_ it'd be, if we could exterm...er, _eliminate_ *ALL* sick-people*!!!* (...The-sooner-the-*better**!!*)
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you consider allowing those under the influence killing innocent people progress?  Further, you don't want to discourage the activity by instituting a large penalty?
> 
> You can kill someone and pay less than $4,000.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're resorting to straw men?
> 
> Show us one person that said driving while high should be legal.
Click to expand...

saveliberty said it


then he refuted it, proving him right and saveliberty a retarded hack




:|


----------



## Cecilie1200

Mr. Shaman said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem with statistics. Most of the time, people who are smoking pot are also doing other drugs, including alcohol. That's why the statistics here are almost completely meaningless. Except the obvious one - no person EVER has died of an overdose of marijuana.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that marijuana is significantly less dangerous a drug than alcohol or cigarettes - and the fact that it is illegal while the others are not is due not to facts about the drug, but other political maneuvering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's also necessary to consider that marijuana-related illnesses and incidents (such as traffic accidents) are usually just lumped into the stats for other substances.  The stats for the health effects of tobacco, for example, are derived from statistics on a variety of health problems linked to tobacco, whether the sufferer actually smoked or not.  This means that if long-term marijuana smoking DID cause lung cancer and emphysemia, we'd never know because it would just be labeled a "smoking-related death" and left at that.
> 
> Likewise, *people DO get in traffic accidents under the influence of marijuana for the same reasons they do with alcohol:  both of them screw with your reaction time and judgement ability.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "There is *no compelling evidence*....."​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....But, go ahead....let's *see* your's!!
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


From the National Institutes of Health:

There are data showing that marijuana can play a role in motor vehicle crashes. Studies show that approximately 414 percent of drivers who sustained injury or died in traffic accidents tested positive for THC. In many of these cases, alcohol was detected as well. When users combine marijuana with alcohol, as they often do, the hazards of driving can be more severe than with either drug alone. In a study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a moderate dose of marijuana alone was shown to impair driving performance; however, the effects of even a low dose of marijuana combined with alcohol were markedly greater than those of either drug alone.

In one study conducted in Memphis, Tennessee, researchers found that, of 150 reckless drivers who were tested for drugs at the arrest scene, 33 percent tested positive for marijuana, and 12 percent tested positive for both marijuana and cocaine. Data also show that while smoking marijuana, people display the same lack of coordination on standard drunk driver tests as do people who have had too much to drink.

NIDA - Publications - Marijuana: Facts Parents Need to Know, pg 11-12

You know, the more you talk, the more convinced I become that marijuana is bad and mind-destroying.  You'd probably help your argument more if you didn't say anything.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Mr. Shaman said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agree 100%.  In fact, the biggest lobbyist in Washington DC against the use of medical marijuana is in fact, the pharmacutical industry in this country--that has bought and paid for decades of propoganda against a completely organic plant.
> 
> This while they're PUSHING on us all their new drugs which is the primary reason why our medical insurance rates have gone through the roof.  New drugs for restless leg syndrome, and all of the other syndromes, including erectile dysnfunction.  You get a 10 second description of what this new pill is for, then a 45 second warning of the side effects, which include:  death, suicidal thoughts, weight gain, musle and joint pain, etc. etc. ect.  Yet--the Federal Government still does not recognize an organic plant--with no long term side effects-while we're spending billions of dollars each year to prosecute and lock up the marijuana user.
> 
> Of course, all of this paranoia over something you could grow in your backyard that could wipe out half of your medicine cabinet.
> 
> *Our Federal GOVERNMENT at work*!!! _Did I forget to mention that I am a conservative--and active tea party member?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the smuck does "organic" have to do with anything?  Nightshade and hemlock are both "organic", but they'll still kill you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You surely-do ask a lotta questions.
> 
> Ya' ever do *your OWN research**?????*
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


How do you expect me to research your ignorant opinions EXCEPT by asking you?  YOU said "organic" like it made some big-ass difference to you, so I'd like to know what you think that difference is.  If YOU don't know, either, why the smuck did you say it?

Like I said, the more you talk, the more obvious it becomes that marijuana creates drooling morons.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Mr. Shaman said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then, of course--you have a link to anyone--over the *decades* that has ended up in one of our emergency rooms because of an overdose of marijuana--or one that has died of some kind of lung disease--over long term use of it.
> 
> Then maybe--you'll show some credibility.
> 
> The facts are:  That our forefathers were fined if they did not grow marijuana plants--whose bi-products were used for rope and tents.  George Washinton's main crop was the marijuana plant--and our declaration of independence is written on hemp paper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> This took all of 15 seconds.  The internet is great.
> Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction -- As Much As 20 Years Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Keep searchin'*, *Skippy!!!*​
Click to expand...


Brilliantly incisive.  Indeed, I'm left breathless by your indepth, well-documented rebuttal.

Keep talking, because if anything, you're convincing people that we should STRENGTHEN restrictions on marijuana.  Parents, save your children from ending up like THIS flatliner!


----------



## JBeukema

Cecilie1200 said:


> There are data showing that marijuana can play a role in motor vehicle crashes.



Anything that slows your reaction time and  can cause you to disassociate from your surroundings can make you crash a car if you're dumb enough to drive while under the influence.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Mr. Shaman said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that lots of people want to justify their addiction to marijuana......
> 
> 
> 
> *BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!!!!!!!!!!*
> 
> (Sorry. I forgot to turn-off my Bimbo-firewall.)
> 
> *Addiction??!!!!*
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


Mr. Shaman:  Marijuana don't hurt nobody.  Look how smart I is!  

I have better things to do than listen to the stoned ramblings of a dipshit whose biggest cause in life is defending his right to be braindead.  FLUSH!


----------



## geauxtohell

Cecilie1200 said:


> From the National Institutes of Health:
> 
> There are data showing that marijuana can play a role in motor vehicle crashes. Studies show that approximately 414 percent of drivers who sustained injury or died in traffic accidents tested positive for THC. In many of these cases, alcohol was detected as well. When users combine marijuana with alcohol, as they often do, the hazards of driving can be more severe than with either drug alone. In a study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a moderate dose of marijuana alone was shown to impair driving performance; however, the effects of even a low dose of marijuana combined with alcohol were markedly greater than those of either drug alone.
> 
> In one study conducted in Memphis, Tennessee, researchers found that, of 150 reckless drivers who were tested for drugs at the arrest scene, 33 percent tested positive for marijuana, and 12 percent tested positive for both marijuana and cocaine. Data also show that while smoking marijuana, people display the same lack of coordination on standard drunk driver tests as do people who have had too much to drink.
> 
> NIDA - Publications - Marijuana: Facts Parents Need to Know, pg 11-12
> 
> You know, the more you talk, the more convinced I become that marijuana is bad and mind-destroying.  You'd probably help your argument more if you didn't say anything.



Anyone that drives while acutely intoxicated on any substance is negligent.  I don't think anyone would argue that.  

However, as has been pointed out, you can test positive for MJ far after (weeks) the effects are gone.

This brings up the biggest problem to the legalization aspect IMO.  How do you test someone to see if they are acutely intoxicated?  I can't imagine anything as handy as a breathalyzer, which means you'd have to draw labs on people.


----------



## Gunny

ABikerSailor said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, the effects of continued heavy drinking last for up to 5 years after stopping drinking.
> 
> Takes about 2 weeks to completely detox off alcohol addiction.
> 
> Takes about 6 months to a full year for the body to get back to complete normal.
> 
> Cannabis doesn't have those ill effects, nor does it stay in you for over a month, and that is if you are mostly sedentary and fat, because THC is fat soluble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right.  You can pop positive for THC for up to 6 months.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can't Gunny.  I know this from DAPA sources, as well as practical demonstrations at MEPS for every applicant that we piss tested over the 2 years I was there.
> 
> Longest I'd ever seen it go for was 3 weeks.  Recruiters will "unofficially" test an applicant back at their station until they finally piss clean, and then bring them to MEPS to be processed.
Click to expand...


Yeah you can.  There's no set rule.  Metabolism is what makes the determination.  Which doesn't mean shit either when you consider  they don't test 200% of the samples.  

Dude, shockingly enough, I was the ENTNAC here.  I don't think you have a "recruiter story" I haven't heard.

Drinka a bottle of vinegar or pickle juice.  That'll do it.


----------



## Foxfyre

geauxtohell said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see why marijuana couldn't be legalized and controlled in much the same way as alcohol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference lies in the residual effect of both and the risk factors for the population as a whole.  Somebody stoned on marijuana is certainly no more dangerous to himself or the population as a whole than is somebody drunk on alcohol.
> 
> However, alcohol, even in high quanities, clears the system within 24 hours and any residual hangover lasts no more than another 24 hours.  Ergo, an airline pilot can be drunk as a skunk on Saturday night, and be perfectly sober and cleared for duty by Tuesday morning.  And there will be no blood alcohol detected.
> 
> Marijuana, however, remains detectable in the body for up to 30 days and there is no known test to determine when a person last used it or how impaired he or she might be.  And that makes it far more difficult to regulate than alcohol.   For that reason, if we legalize the stuff, and I am not opposed to that, I would want the authorities to back employers and regulatory processes to the hilt to have zero tolerance for marijuana use in all professions where a clear head and quick response time is important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alcohol is one of the few drugs that functions on zero order kinetics.  That means the rate of metabolism is affected by time and time alone (as opposed to dosage or other factors).  That's why hospitals are generally moving away from pumping stomachs.  By the time someone is so intoxicated that they are brought to the hospital, the alcohol is already in their blood/liver and out of their stomach.  The only think you can do is keep their airway clear.  There is no antidote (unlike opiates, benzos, etc).
> 
> The effect of pot wears off in hours, but a person will come up "hot" because THC is fat soluble and not water soluble like alcohol (metabolized to acetic acid).  That doesn't mean the person is still high, they just have enough molecules hiding out in their fat and are gradually excreting it out of their urine over a longer period of time.
Click to expand...


That is my understanding but thanks for putting it into more proper clinical form.  

But unless they've developed new technology in the last few years, would you not agree that once a drunk person sobers up and gets through the hangover, he is generally good to go and not a threat to others if he pilots an airplane or gets behind the wheel or whatever?

And I agree (and said) that testing positive for THC does not necessarily indicate  probable impairment, but there is no way to know for sure.  You can't tell from the test how long ago it was that the person used the drug.  Therefore, the recommendation that there be zero tolerance for those who will be engaged in activities that call for mental sharpness and normal reaction time.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> That is my understanding but thanks for putting it into more proper clinical form.
> 
> But unless they've developed new technology in the last few years, would you not agree that once a drunk person sobers up and gets through the hangover, he is generally good to go and not a threat to others if he pilots an airplane or gets behind the wheel or whatever?



It depends on how much of a drunk they are.  People that are addicted to alcohol, and I mean seriously addicted, will literally die without it.  To quantify, a person can and will die from DTs.  Not even heroin kills someone when they withdraw.  Some people drink because they can't stop.  Their body is that dependent on it.  

However, barring that, once a person is sober, and they can function hung over, they aren't a threat behind a wheel.



> And I agree (and said) that testing positive for THC does not necessarily indicate  probable impairment, but there is no way to know for sure.  You can't tell from the test how long ago it was that the person used the drug.  Therefore, the recommendation that there be zero tolerance for those who will be engaged in activities that call for mental sharpness and normal reaction time.



I think the lack of a test that can tell if someone is acutely intoxicated from MJ is the biggest pragmatic barrier behind full legalization.  I would speculate that they could do a urine test and equate the THC level with a degree of intoxication, but that would require taking someone back to the station and doing the labs and most likely holding them until they come back.  

Just something to think about.


----------



## mal

YoungLefty said:


> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.



Prove that.



peace...


----------



## Rat in the Hat

eots said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do cigarettes have to do with this? Are you claiming they are also a perception altering substance??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol of course they are
> 
> 
> nicotine's mood-altering effects are different by report: in particular it is both a stimulant and a relaxant.[26] First causing a release of glucose from the liver and epinephrine (adrenaline) from the adrenal medulla, it causes stimulation. Users report feelings of relaxation, sharpness, calmness, and alertness.[27] By reducing the appetite and raising the metabolism, some smokers may lose weight as a consequence.[28][29]
> When a cigarette is smoked, nicotine-rich blood passes from the lungs to the brain within seven seconds and immediately stimulates the release of many chemical messengers including acetylcholine, norepinephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin, arginine, dopamine, autocrine agents, and beta-endorphin.[30] This release of neurotransmitters and hormones is responsible for most of nicotine's effects. Nicotine appears to enhance concentration[31] and memory due to the increase of acetylcholine. It also appears to enhance alertness due to the increases of acetylcholine and norepinephrine. Arousal is increased by the increase of norepinephrine. Pain is reduced by the increases of acetylcholine and beta-endorphin. Anxiety is reduced by the increase of beta-endorphin. Nicotine also extends the duration of positive effects of dopamine[32] and increases sensitivity in brain reward systems.[33] Most cigarettes (in the smoke inhaled) contain 1 to 3 milligrams of nicotine.[34]
> Research suggests that, when smokers wish to achieve a stimulating effect, they take short quick puffs, which produce a low level of blood nicotine.[35] This stimulates nerve transmission. When they wish to relax, they take deep puffs, which produce a high level of blood nicotine, which depresses the passage of nerve impulses, producing a mild sedative effect. At low doses, nicotine potently enhances the actions of norepinephrine and dopamine in the brain, causing a drug effect typical of those of psychostimulants. At higher doses, nicotine enhances the effect of serotonin and opiate activity, producing a calming, pain-killing effect. Nicotine is unique in comparison to most drugs, as its profile changes from stimulant to sedative/pain killer in increasing dosages and use. (Another drug that behaves similarly is ethanol.)
> 
> Nicotine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


So then how many cigarettes would I have to smoke until my perception is impaired to the point of driving a car, or operating heavy machinery?

That's my point. Cigarettes are continually equated to alcohol & drugs, yet I've never heard of someone causing an accident while under the influence of tobacco.


----------



## Rat in the Hat

SpidermanTuba said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be why I put the qualifier there. Of course it's not the same. I never claimed that it was. But medically, yes nicotine is a mood-altering drug.
> 
> 
> 2 shots? You're a lightweight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only drink at weddings & funerals. And then, only when toasting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you do?
Click to expand...


What do you mean?


----------



## ABikerSailor

tha malcontent said:


> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...


Disprove it........



pieces............


----------



## ABikerSailor

Rat in the Hat said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do cigarettes have to do with this? Are you claiming they are also a perception altering substance??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol of course they are
> 
> 
> nicotine's mood-altering effects are different by report: in particular it is both a stimulant and a relaxant.[26] First causing a release of glucose from the liver and epinephrine (adrenaline) from the adrenal medulla, it causes stimulation. Users report feelings of relaxation, sharpness, calmness, and alertness.[27] By reducing the appetite and raising the metabolism, some smokers may lose weight as a consequence.[28][29]
> When a cigarette is smoked, nicotine-rich blood passes from the lungs to the brain within seven seconds and immediately stimulates the release of many chemical messengers including acetylcholine, norepinephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin, arginine, dopamine, autocrine agents, and beta-endorphin.[30] This release of neurotransmitters and hormones is responsible for most of nicotine's effects. Nicotine appears to enhance concentration[31] and memory due to the increase of acetylcholine. It also appears to enhance alertness due to the increases of acetylcholine and norepinephrine. Arousal is increased by the increase of norepinephrine. Pain is reduced by the increases of acetylcholine and beta-endorphin. Anxiety is reduced by the increase of beta-endorphin. Nicotine also extends the duration of positive effects of dopamine[32] and increases sensitivity in brain reward systems.[33] Most cigarettes (in the smoke inhaled) contain 1 to 3 milligrams of nicotine.[34]
> Research suggests that, when smokers wish to achieve a stimulating effect, they take short quick puffs, which produce a low level of blood nicotine.[35] This stimulates nerve transmission. When they wish to relax, they take deep puffs, which produce a high level of blood nicotine, which depresses the passage of nerve impulses, producing a mild sedative effect. At low doses, nicotine potently enhances the actions of norepinephrine and dopamine in the brain, causing a drug effect typical of those of psychostimulants. At higher doses, nicotine enhances the effect of serotonin and opiate activity, producing a calming, pain-killing effect. Nicotine is unique in comparison to most drugs, as its profile changes from stimulant to sedative/pain killer in increasing dosages and use. (Another drug that behaves similarly is ethanol.)
> 
> Nicotine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then how many cigarettes would I have to smoke until my perception is impaired to the point of driving a car, or operating heavy machinery?
> 
> That's my point. Cigarettes are continually equated to alcohol & drugs, yet I've never heard of someone causing an accident while under the influence of tobacco.
Click to expand...


How many?  If you're a pack a day smoker, 10 cigarettes in 1 hour will do it.  Why?  If you smoke too much, you end up nauseated and jumpy, and your attention span is about that of a hamster.

Cigarettes never caused an accident?  Ever drop one into your lap or down on the floorboards while driving and go into opposite traffic?  I never have, but I've heard of people who did.


----------



## Rat in the Hat

ABikerSailor said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol of course they are
> 
> 
> nicotine's mood-altering effects are different by report: in particular it is both a stimulant and a relaxant.[26] First causing a release of glucose from the liver and epinephrine (adrenaline) from the adrenal medulla, it causes stimulation. Users report feelings of relaxation, sharpness, calmness, and alertness.[27] By reducing the appetite and raising the metabolism, some smokers may lose weight as a consequence.[28][29]
> When a cigarette is smoked, nicotine-rich blood passes from the lungs to the brain within seven seconds and immediately stimulates the release of many chemical messengers including acetylcholine, norepinephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin, arginine, dopamine, autocrine agents, and beta-endorphin.[30] This release of neurotransmitters and hormones is responsible for most of nicotine's effects. Nicotine appears to enhance concentration[31] and memory due to the increase of acetylcholine. It also appears to enhance alertness due to the increases of acetylcholine and norepinephrine. Arousal is increased by the increase of norepinephrine. Pain is reduced by the increases of acetylcholine and beta-endorphin. Anxiety is reduced by the increase of beta-endorphin. Nicotine also extends the duration of positive effects of dopamine[32] and increases sensitivity in brain reward systems.[33] Most cigarettes (in the smoke inhaled) contain 1 to 3 milligrams of nicotine.[34]
> Research suggests that, when smokers wish to achieve a stimulating effect, they take short quick puffs, which produce a low level of blood nicotine.[35] This stimulates nerve transmission. When they wish to relax, they take deep puffs, which produce a high level of blood nicotine, which depresses the passage of nerve impulses, producing a mild sedative effect. At low doses, nicotine potently enhances the actions of norepinephrine and dopamine in the brain, causing a drug effect typical of those of psychostimulants. At higher doses, nicotine enhances the effect of serotonin and opiate activity, producing a calming, pain-killing effect. Nicotine is unique in comparison to most drugs, as its profile changes from stimulant to sedative/pain killer in increasing dosages and use. (Another drug that behaves similarly is ethanol.)
> 
> Nicotine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then how many cigarettes would I have to smoke until my perception is impaired to the point of driving a car, or operating heavy machinery?
> 
> That's my point. Cigarettes are continually equated to alcohol & drugs, yet I've never heard of someone causing an accident while under the influence of tobacco.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many?  If you're a pack a day smoker, 10 cigarettes in 1 hour will do it.  Why?  If you smoke too much, you end up nauseated and jumpy, and your attention span is about that of a hamster.
> 
> *Cigarettes never caused an accident?  Ever drop one into your lap or down on the floorboards while driving and go into opposite traffic?*  I never have, but I've heard of people who did.
Click to expand...


You can do the same thing with a cell phone, or an iPod. Are they the same as alcohol too?


----------



## ABikerSailor

What about smoking to keep yourself awake, and then, after you light the last one at night driving, and you miss the oncoming vehicle?


----------



## geauxtohell

Rat in the Hat said:


> You can do the same thing with a cell phone, or an iPod. Are they the same as alcohol too?



No one is saying that the effects of all drugs are the same.  However, simply because the effects of alcohol aren't the same as the effects of smoking doesn't mean that cigarettes don't have an effect.

You've never caught a buzz off of smoking or dipping?  If so, and you kept smoking, what happened?  You eventually had to smoke more to get that buzz.  That's your nervous system responding to your habits and the process of tolerance.  

As someone pointed out, with all the relevant neurology, cigarettes absolutely work on your central and peripheral nervous system.  

As for the long term effects, there is no debate about the harms of smoking.


----------



## eots

Rat in the Hat said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do cigarettes have to do with this? Are you claiming they are also a perception altering substance??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol of course they are
> 
> 
> nicotine's mood-altering effects are different by report: in particular it is both a stimulant and a relaxant.[26] First causing a release of glucose from the liver and epinephrine (adrenaline) from the adrenal medulla, it causes stimulation. Users report feelings of relaxation, sharpness, calmness, and alertness.[27] By reducing the appetite and raising the metabolism, some smokers may lose weight as a consequence.[28][29]
> When a cigarette is smoked, nicotine-rich blood passes from the lungs to the brain within seven seconds and immediately stimulates the release of many chemical messengers including acetylcholine, norepinephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin, arginine, dopamine, autocrine agents, and beta-endorphin.[30] This release of neurotransmitters and hormones is responsible for most of nicotine's effects. Nicotine appears to enhance concentration[31] and memory due to the increase of acetylcholine. It also appears to enhance alertness due to the increases of acetylcholine and norepinephrine. Arousal is increased by the increase of norepinephrine. Pain is reduced by the increases of acetylcholine and beta-endorphin. Anxiety is reduced by the increase of beta-endorphin. Nicotine also extends the duration of positive effects of dopamine[32] and increases sensitivity in brain reward systems.[33] Most cigarettes (in the smoke inhaled) contain 1 to 3 milligrams of nicotine.[34]
> Research suggests that, when smokers wish to achieve a stimulating effect, they take short quick puffs, which produce a low level of blood nicotine.[35] This stimulates nerve transmission. When they wish to relax, they take deep puffs, which produce a high level of blood nicotine, which depresses the passage of nerve impulses, producing a mild sedative effect. At low doses, nicotine potently enhances the actions of norepinephrine and dopamine in the brain, causing a drug effect typical of those of psychostimulants. At higher doses, nicotine enhances the effect of serotonin and opiate activity, producing a calming, pain-killing effect. Nicotine is unique in comparison to most drugs, as its profile changes from stimulant to sedative/pain killer in increasing dosages and use. (Another drug that behaves similarly is ethanol.)
> 
> Nicotine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then how many cigarettes would I have to smoke until my perception is impaired to the point of driving a car, or operating heavy machinery?
> 
> That's my point. Cigarettes are continually equated to alcohol & drugs, yet I've never heard of someone causing an accident while under the influence of tobacco.
Click to expand...


while I doubt it is the cause of many vehicle accidents if you have not developed a tolerance one deeply inhaled cigarette can definitely impair your abilities and get your head spinning


----------



## Cecilie1200

Rat in the Hat said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do cigarettes have to do with this? Are you claiming they are also a perception altering substance??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol of course they are
> 
> 
> nicotine's mood-altering effects are different by report: in particular it is both a stimulant and a relaxant.[26] First causing a release of glucose from the liver and epinephrine (adrenaline) from the adrenal medulla, it causes stimulation. Users report feelings of relaxation, sharpness, calmness, and alertness.[27] By reducing the appetite and raising the metabolism, some smokers may lose weight as a consequence.[28][29]
> When a cigarette is smoked, nicotine-rich blood passes from the lungs to the brain within seven seconds and immediately stimulates the release of many chemical messengers including acetylcholine, norepinephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin, arginine, dopamine, autocrine agents, and beta-endorphin.[30] This release of neurotransmitters and hormones is responsible for most of nicotine's effects. Nicotine appears to enhance concentration[31] and memory due to the increase of acetylcholine. It also appears to enhance alertness due to the increases of acetylcholine and norepinephrine. Arousal is increased by the increase of norepinephrine. Pain is reduced by the increases of acetylcholine and beta-endorphin. Anxiety is reduced by the increase of beta-endorphin. Nicotine also extends the duration of positive effects of dopamine[32] and increases sensitivity in brain reward systems.[33] Most cigarettes (in the smoke inhaled) contain 1 to 3 milligrams of nicotine.[34]
> Research suggests that, when smokers wish to achieve a stimulating effect, they take short quick puffs, which produce a low level of blood nicotine.[35] This stimulates nerve transmission. When they wish to relax, they take deep puffs, which produce a high level of blood nicotine, which depresses the passage of nerve impulses, producing a mild sedative effect. At low doses, nicotine potently enhances the actions of norepinephrine and dopamine in the brain, causing a drug effect typical of those of psychostimulants. At higher doses, nicotine enhances the effect of serotonin and opiate activity, producing a calming, pain-killing effect. Nicotine is unique in comparison to most drugs, as its profile changes from stimulant to sedative/pain killer in increasing dosages and use. (Another drug that behaves similarly is ethanol.)
> 
> Nicotine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then how many cigarettes would I have to smoke until my perception is impaired to the point of driving a car, or operating heavy machinery?
> 
> That's my point. Cigarettes are continually equated to alcohol & drugs, yet I've never heard of someone causing an accident while under the influence of tobacco.
Click to expand...


Dunno about under the influence of tobacco, but I sure hate riding with my best friend when he's having a nic fit.


----------



## Cecilie1200

eots said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol of course they are
> 
> 
> nicotine's mood-altering effects are different by report: in particular it is both a stimulant and a relaxant.[26] First causing a release of glucose from the liver and epinephrine (adrenaline) from the adrenal medulla, it causes stimulation. Users report feelings of relaxation, sharpness, calmness, and alertness.[27] By reducing the appetite and raising the metabolism, some smokers may lose weight as a consequence.[28][29]
> When a cigarette is smoked, nicotine-rich blood passes from the lungs to the brain within seven seconds and immediately stimulates the release of many chemical messengers including acetylcholine, norepinephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin, arginine, dopamine, autocrine agents, and beta-endorphin.[30] This release of neurotransmitters and hormones is responsible for most of nicotine's effects. Nicotine appears to enhance concentration[31] and memory due to the increase of acetylcholine. It also appears to enhance alertness due to the increases of acetylcholine and norepinephrine. Arousal is increased by the increase of norepinephrine. Pain is reduced by the increases of acetylcholine and beta-endorphin. Anxiety is reduced by the increase of beta-endorphin. Nicotine also extends the duration of positive effects of dopamine[32] and increases sensitivity in brain reward systems.[33] Most cigarettes (in the smoke inhaled) contain 1 to 3 milligrams of nicotine.[34]
> Research suggests that, when smokers wish to achieve a stimulating effect, they take short quick puffs, which produce a low level of blood nicotine.[35] This stimulates nerve transmission. When they wish to relax, they take deep puffs, which produce a high level of blood nicotine, which depresses the passage of nerve impulses, producing a mild sedative effect. At low doses, nicotine potently enhances the actions of norepinephrine and dopamine in the brain, causing a drug effect typical of those of psychostimulants. At higher doses, nicotine enhances the effect of serotonin and opiate activity, producing a calming, pain-killing effect. Nicotine is unique in comparison to most drugs, as its profile changes from stimulant to sedative/pain killer in increasing dosages and use. (Another drug that behaves similarly is ethanol.)
> 
> Nicotine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then how many cigarettes would I have to smoke until my perception is impaired to the point of driving a car, or operating heavy machinery?
> 
> That's my point. Cigarettes are continually equated to alcohol & drugs, yet I've never heard of someone causing an accident while under the influence of tobacco.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> while I doubt it is the cause of many vehicle accidents if you have not developed a tolerance one deeply inhaled cigarette can definitely impair your abilities and get your head spinning
Click to expand...


I don't think the OP was referring so much to traffic accidents as just deaths caused by alcohol and tobacco in general.


----------



## Cal

What a huge response to a simple question! I agree with pretty much everything Oreo said..Very cool that I actually have something in common with a tea partier! In response to the person that called me a "pothead," actually I've never used pot..Keep trying.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Rat in the Hat said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only drink at weddings & funerals. And then, only when toasting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
Click to expand...


What do you do?


----------



## Cecilie1200

YoungLefty said:


> What a huge response to a simple question! I agree with pretty much everything Oreo said..Very cool that I actually have something in common with a tea partier! In response to the person that called me a "pothead," actually I've never used pot..Keep trying.



So you mean you're just stupid without any mitigating factors?


----------



## saveliberty

SpidermanTuba said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you do?
Click to expand...


I'm guessing lamp shades on the head.  Not very good at rephrasing questions huh?


----------



## Rat in the Hat

SpidermanTuba said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you do?
Click to expand...


How about completing the question, such as;

What do you do for a living?

or

What do you do for fun?

or

What do you do for a Klondike bar?

Just give me something to go on so that I can answer your question.


----------



## saveliberty

Rat in the Hat said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about completing the question, such as;
> 
> What do you do for a living?
> 
> or
> 
> What do you do for fun?
> 
> or
> 
> What do you do for a Klondike bar?
> 
> Just give me something to go on so that I can answer your question.
Click to expand...


He might be asking whether you do beer, cigarettes and/or marijuana.  WHatever we do, we can't blame THC for diminished capacity.


----------



## mal

ABikerSailor said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disprove it........
> 
> 
> 
> pieces............
Click to expand...


It's an Absurd Claim... Pot has been Involved in MANY Deaths, just as Booze...

Should People be Allowed to Drive High?...

Please.



peace...


----------



## Foxfyre

tha malcontent said:


> ... Pot has been Involved in MANY Deaths, just as Booze...



We probably don't have a really good number mostly because pot is not high on the suspicion list in serious or fatal accidents.  But in the last couple of years or so in our area there has been a fatal train crash and several auto crashes in which alcohol was ruled out, but it was strongly believed marijuana was involved.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Foxfyre said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Pot has been Involved in MANY Deaths, just as Booze...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We probably don't have a really good number mostly because pot is not high on the suspicion list in serious or fatal accidents.  But in the last couple of years or so in our area there has been a fatal train crash and several auto crashes in which alcohol was ruled out, but it was strongly believed marijuana was involved.
Click to expand...


'it was strongly believed'

HA!

Was 'it' strongly believed by a 'person' ?

Does this 'person' have a 'name' ?


----------



## Foxfyre

SpidermanTuba said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Pot has been Involved in MANY Deaths, just as Booze...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We probably don't have a really good number mostly because pot is not high on the suspicion list in serious or fatal accidents.  But in the last couple of years or so in our area there has been a fatal train crash and several auto crashes in which alcohol was ruled out, but it was strongly believed marijuana was involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'it was strongly believed'
> 
> HA!
> 
> Was 'it' strongly believed by a 'person' ?
> 
> Does this 'person' have a 'name' ?
Click to expand...


Sure, but you probably don't know them.  Names of law enforcement officers, medical personnel, the coroner, folks like that.

Who knows for sure WHAT causes anybody to have a lapse of judgment sufficient to cause a serious or fatal accident?   So you look for the most common factors and the most likely causes.

In the case of the train, the engineer ignored the speed limit and  blew through a red light.  Would that have happened if he had not been high on pot?   We don't know.  But it has to be held up as a strong possibility.  Ditto for the auto accidents in which the drivers tested positive for marijuana and not alcohol.  Almost all were various kinds of inattentiveness--failure to maintain a lane, going the wrong way on the freeway, blowing a red light etc.   Would those accidents have happened anyway?   We don't know that either, but it has to be held up as a possibility that the pot impaired their judgment as we know that pot can impair judgment.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Foxfyre said:


> In the case of the train, the engineer ignored the speed limit and  blew through a red light.  Would that have happened if he had not been high on pot?   We don't know.  But it has to be held up as a strong possibility.


Why? Because correlation always implies causation? How do they even know he was stoned at the time of the accident?


----------



## Foxfyre

SpidermanTuba said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of the train, the engineer ignored the speed limit and  blew through a red light.  Would that have happened if he had not been high on pot?   We don't know.  But it has to be held up as a strong possibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Because correlation always implies causation? How do they even know he was stoned at the time of the accident?
Click to expand...


If you don't know the answers to these questions after all that has been posted in this thread thus far, I doubt anything I could say further would make one whits bit of difference here.  So I'll such refer you to read the thread again.  If you don't find your answer, well. . . .


----------



## Cal

tha malcontent said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disprove it........
> 
> 
> 
> pieces............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an Absurd Claim... Pot has been Involved in MANY Deaths, just as Booze...
> 
> Should People be Allowed to Drive High?...
> 
> Please.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...


Link?


----------



## Rat in the Hat

saveliberty said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about completing the question, such as;
> 
> What do you do for a living?
> 
> or
> 
> What do you do for fun?
> 
> or
> 
> What do you do for a Klondike bar?
> 
> Just give me something to go on so that I can answer your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He might be asking whether you do beer, cigarettes and/or marijuana.  WHatever we do, we can't blame THC for diminished capacity.
Click to expand...


And you're right, that might be. But I don't know for sure until he decides to finish asking the question.

If that is his question, my answer would be that I smoke like a chimney. But I've never gotten high enough from cigarettes to be a danger to myself or others. What the future holds is only up to fate.


----------



## Mr Natural

Beer and cigarettes are readily available at the local convenience store.

Marijuana is not.


----------



## saveliberty

Mr Clean said:


> Beer and cigarettes are readily available at the local convenience store.
> 
> Marijuana is not.



You have to ask at the checkout.


----------



## JBeukema

Mr Clean said:


> Beer and cigarettes are readily available at the local convenience store.
> 
> Marijuana is not.


Maybe not where you live...


----------



## Philobeado

A friend of mine died from lung cancer at age 47. He was a heavy pot smoker and didn't smoke tobacco. I've read that marijuana smoke is actually more cancer-causing than tobacco.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Philobeado said:


> A friend of mine died from lung cancer at age 47. He was a heavy pot smoker and didn't smoke tobacco. I've read that marijuana smoke is actually more cancer-causing than tobacco.



British Medical Society did a comparison between 3 groups. 

Cigarette smokers only, non smokers, and pot only smokers.  When they compared the 3 groups?

People who didn't smoke were the control group.  People who smoked were 21 times more likely to contract lung cancer than those that didn't.

People who smoked only cannabis were compared to the non smokers.  The results were the cannabis smokers were 0.93 to 0.73 percent as likely to get lung cancer as those who didn't smoke at all, which means a LESS chance.

But, cancer can be caused by many other factors as well, starting with genetics.


----------



## Foxfyre

Rebuttal to the unnamed and undated "British medical study" (emphasis mine):



> *Pot Vs. Tobacco
> "Medicinal" Marijuana More Toxic Than Cigarettes*
> 
> It's a little noticed paradox: The push to impose more restrictions on cigarettes while simultaneously liberalizing access to so-called "medical" marijuana. Fortunately, there's broad consensus on the dangers tobacco poses to your heart, lungs, skin, bones, brain and even reproductive health. Yet marijuana smoke is far more carcinogenic and damaging to the lungs. But it's dubbed "medicine," which is supposed to treat, not promote disease. Consider these statistics:
> 
> *One marijuana joint is as damaging as seven cigarettes, according to one British Lung Foundation study. *
> 
> Like tobacco, marijuana is genotoxic (e.g., capable of damaging genetic material, thus creating errors in DNA replication that can eventually lead to tumor growth).
> The tar (condensable residue in smoke) from marijuana has 50% more carcinogens than tobacco tar.
> 
> Regular cannabis smokers can develop lung problems as much as 20 years earlier than their tobacco smoking counterparts, according to a study in the journal Respirology. On average, pot smokers developed lung disease by 41 years of age, vs. 65 years of age for tobacco smokers. . . .
> 
> More here:
> POT vs. TOBACCO



Does this exaggerate the toxicity of cannabis?  I don't know.  I suspect maybe it does.  But it is NOT the benign harmless substance that the pro-legalization crowd seems to want to believe.


----------



## ABikerSailor

First off, it's sponsored by a corporation.  I rarely trust what corporations put out.

Second, it states that cannabis is addictive.  Harvard Medical, as well as several other REPUTABLE, ACTUAL MEDICAL CENTERS, have stated (after much research) that it is not physically addictive.

I see you're keeping the streak of being wrong going well, Fox Failure.


----------



## Misty

I would rather live a short fun life than a long miserable life. 

I still have that choice and I'm going to have fun.


----------



## Wry Catcher

manu1959 said:


> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get your facts straight and then maybe we can talk.  No one died from a marijuana related incident?  Really?  Link please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, since you seem to know what the number is, please provide. This is where I got my info: Annual Causes of Death in the United States | Drug War Facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i knew a dude that was stoned and fell to his death....i am sure weed is harmless....i mean how could a drug harm you....and holding smoke in your lungs...perfectly normal....
Click to expand...


I knew a guy whose ex-wife's son by a prior marriage dated a girl whose father-in-law once saw a lady fart while looking over the side of a cruise ship and fall to her watery grave.  My question is, what was the proximate cause of her death,  the beans she had for dinner or the wine?


----------



## Foxfyre

ABikerSailor said:


> First off, it's sponsored by a corporation.  I rarely trust what corporations put out.
> 
> Second, it states that cannabis is addictive.  Harvard Medical, as well as several other REPUTABLE, ACTUAL MEDICAL CENTERS, have stated (after much research) that it is not physically addictive.
> 
> I see you're keeping the streak of being wrong going well, Fox Failure.



A corporation with absolutely no dog in the fight and therefore no compelling reason to misstate their position.

At least I cited a link.  You didn't.

Here's another rebuttal with a link.  You probably won't like the source any better but it does cite specific studies that can be follow up:



> *Long-term effects of marijuana use *
> 
> Increased risk of cancer
> Respiratory problems: coughing and wheezing
> Increased risk of heart attack
> Weakening of the immune system
> Problems with learning, attention, and memory
> Emotional and behavioral problems
> Addiction in predisposed individuals, more often among teens
> Adverse effects on pregnancy
> Social problems among teenagers
> 
> The use of marijuana among teens is now rapidly escalating in the most industrialized nations. It is well known that there are many adults who enjoy a smoke once or twice a week without any major health consequences. It is the minority of heavy users who have lost control and whose physical and mental health is seriously damaged.
> How "minor" is this minority, though?
> 
> According to recent statistics of theUS National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), there were an estimated 2.1 million Americans who started using marijuana in 1998; more than 72.0 million Americans (1/3 of the US population) 12 years and older have tried marijuana at least once in their lifetimes and more than 120,000 people undergoing treatment. In 1999, theCenter on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) pointed out that 88,000 teens had been admitted for treatment for marijuana, more than those treated for any other drug or alcohol. In Minneapolis/ St. Paul half of the admitted were under 18. Other scientists believe that there were many more teenage users needing treatment than what was previously thought.
> 
> Data provided by the NIDA also showed that between 1991 and 1999 the percentage of 8th- and 10th- graders who have used marijuana had increased twice. The Emergency Department mentions of marijuana use increase in many US states with the highest percent increase among the 12- to 17-year-olds. Juvenile arrests testing positive for marijuana ranged from a low of 40% to 63% in US.
> Poisonous Plants: Cannabis (Cannabis sativa)


----------



## Foxfyre

Here, I'll even follow up on one of the sources cited for you:



> Combination of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Motivational Incentives Enhance Treatment for Marijuana Addiction
> For Release April 1, 2006
> 
> New research supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National Institutes of Health, indicates that people who are trying to end their addiction to marijuana can benefit from a treatment program that combines motivational incentives with cognitive-behavioral therapy. The study is published in the April 2006 issue of the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
> 
> "Demand for effective treatments for marijuana addiction increased significantly in the United States during the 1990s," says NIDA Director Dr. Nora D. Volkow. "Marijuana remains one of the most widely used drugs of abuse. Heavy use of the drug impairs a person's ability to form memories, recall events, and shift attention from one thing to another. Someone who smokes marijuana regularly may have many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers do, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illnesses, and a heightened risk of lung infections. Thus, treatments to reduce and eliminate marijuana abuse will offer substantial public health benefits." . . . .
> 
> 
> NIDA - Newsroom - Combination of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Motivational Incentives Enhance Treatment for Marijuana Addiction


----------



## JBeukema

If I want to use a product I know causes cancer, shouldn't I be allowed to enjoy my smokable plants, my diet cola, my plastic containers, my weedless garden, my home that's free of pests, my sexy suntan, my favorite shampoo, my 12 hours of body odour protection my countertops cleaned with agent orange [dioxin], my favorite hot dogs, my whole-milk mocha, my BBQd meats [oh no, take BBQs off the market- it forms benzopyrene when you grill your meat!]- my LIFE and accept the risk that comes with it?


Carcinogens At Home

Carcinogens everyday toxins, foods, houses, petroleum, Carcinogens in your house

The list of carcinogens - wikiCancer

Wei  Zheng, Deborah R Gustafson, Rashmi Sinha, James R Cerhan, _et al._  "Well-done meat intake and the risk of breast cancer." _Journal of the  National Cancer Institute_. Oxford: Nov 18, 1998.Vol. 90, Iss. 22;  pg. 1724, 6 pgs.


Food Standards Agency - Acrylamide


----------



## JBeukema

If they've no dog in the fight, why take an official position on this particular issue?

Look for ties to other businesses and groups.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Foxfyre said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off, it's sponsored by a corporation.  I rarely trust what corporations put out.
> 
> Second, it states that cannabis is addictive.  Harvard Medical, as well as several other REPUTABLE, ACTUAL MEDICAL CENTERS, have stated (after much research) that it is not physically addictive.
> 
> I see you're keeping the streak of being wrong going well, Fox Failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A corporation with absolutely no dog in the fight and therefore no compelling reason to misstate their position.
> 
> At least I cited a link.  You didn't.
> 
> Here's another rebuttal with a link.  You probably won't like the source any better but it does cite specific studies that can be follow up:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Long-term effects of marijuana use *
> 
> Increased risk of cancer
> Respiratory problems: coughing and wheezing
> Increased risk of heart attack
> Weakening of the immune system
> Problems with learning, attention, and memory
> Emotional and behavioral problems
> Addiction in predisposed individuals, more often among teens
> Adverse effects on pregnancy
> Social problems among teenagers
> 
> The use of marijuana among teens is now rapidly escalating in the most industrialized nations. It is well known that there are many adults who enjoy a smoke once or twice a week without any major health consequences. It is the minority of heavy users who have lost control and whose physical and mental health is seriously damaged.
> How "minor" is this minority, though?
> 
> According to recent statistics of theUS National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), there were an estimated 2.1 million Americans who started using marijuana in 1998; more than 72.0 million Americans (1/3 of the US population) 12 years and older have tried marijuana at least once in their lifetimes and more than 120,000 people undergoing treatment. In 1999, theCenter on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) pointed out that 88,000 teens had been admitted for treatment for marijuana, more than those treated for any other drug or alcohol. In Minneapolis/ St. Paul half of the admitted were under 18. Other scientists believe that there were many more teenage users needing treatment than what was previously thought.
> 
> Data provided by the NIDA also showed that between 1991 and 1999 the percentage of 8th- and 10th- graders who have used marijuana had increased twice. The Emergency Department mentions of marijuana use increase in many US states with the highest percent increase among the 12- to 17-year-olds. Juvenile arrests testing positive for marijuana ranged from a low of 40% to 63% in US.
> Poisonous Plants: Cannabis (Cannabis sativa)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You can't be so stupid that you actually believe that a corporation is going to present "facts" without any slant concerning the views of their CEO's.  If you are, I feel sorry for you.

In the military, I was a Navy Drug and Alcohol Program Advisor for 8 years before I retired.  I'm very familiar with the effects and studies done with cannabis.  Had to be, was part of my job.

Most people who are against the legalization of cannabis don't even know half of what the government had done regarding it's research.  In the 1960's/70's, the government took military people and made them smoke lots of pot for research.

They also don't realize that the original reason that pot was made illegal is because of an FBI racist named Anslinger who didn't like brown  or black people, and was searching for a way to lock them all up legally.

Since they were the larges consumers of cannabis, Anslinger decided to make it illegal as a way to lock up the non-whites, thus bringing about the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act.

In the 70's, Nixon wanted to start a full scale drug war against cannabis, and so commissioned scientists to find out about it.  He commissioned a study called the Laguardia Report.  When it spoke favorably about cannabis use, Nixon threw it in the trash.

Might wanna brush up on some actual facts before failing again dude.  Anyone can find a link on the 'net that looks legit but is full of bullshit.  Dole pineapple is not someone that I would consider a legitimate authority on the subject.  They know pineapples, not pot.

As far as the study concerning kids and cannabis?  Yep.  It's right.  Why?  Kids' brains aren't fully developed until they are in their late teens or early 20's, and smoking cannabis before that could have an adverse effect on their personality.

On the flip side though...........people with Alzheimer's disease have plaque buildup between their synapses.  Cannabis amps up the power in the brain so that more of the signal can get through.  Medical research has proven this already.

Autistic people have too much energy running in their brain and it spikes on occasion, which is why they freak out......too much input.

Cannabis levels this out and helps them to remain calm.  It has also shown a great deal of promise for treating PTSD as well.

What else you got fruit salad boy?


----------



## froggy

One has no tax on it.


----------



## WillowTree

Philobeado said:


> A friend of mine died from lung cancer at age 47. He was a heavy pot smoker and didn't smoke tobacco. I've read that marijuana smoke is actually more cancer-causing than tobacco.



smoke one marijuana cigarette and you have smoke a pack of cigarettes.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Foxfyre said:


> Here, I'll even follow up on one of the sources cited for you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Combination of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Motivational Incentives Enhance Treatment for Marijuana Addiction
> For Release April 1, 2006
> 
> New research supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National Institutes of Health, indicates that people who are trying to end their addiction to marijuana can benefit from a treatment program that combines motivational incentives with cognitive-behavioral therapy. The study is published in the April 2006 issue of the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
> 
> "Demand for effective treatments for marijuana addiction increased significantly in the United States during the 1990s," says NIDA Director Dr. Nora D. Volkow. "Marijuana remains one of the most widely used drugs of abuse. Heavy use of the drug impairs a person's ability to form memories, recall events, and shift attention from one thing to another. Someone who smokes marijuana regularly may have many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers do, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illnesses, and a heightened risk of lung infections. Thus, treatments to reduce and eliminate marijuana abuse will offer substantial public health benefits." . . . .
> 
> 
> NIDA - Newsroom - Combination of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Motivational Incentives Enhance Treatment for Marijuana Addiction
Click to expand...


Hey.....dipshit.........I told you that it wasn't PHYSICALLY addictive.

And, for the record, you can become psychologically addicted to just about anything....porn, people, sex, etc.


----------



## boedicca

The issue with pot, imo, is not so much the cancer threat but how it affects behavior.

People who smoke a lot of pot have motivation and productivity issues.  Students who use it do less well in school, and workers have a host of problems:

_Workers who smoke marijuana are more likely than their coworkers to have problems on the job. Several studies associate workers&#8217; marijuana smoking with increased absences, tardiness, accidents, workers&#8217; compensation claims, and job turnover. A study of municipal workers found that those who used marijuana on or off the job reported more &#8220;Withdrawal behaviors&#8221;&#8212;such as leaving work without permission, daydreaming, spending work time on personal matters, and shirking tasks&#8212;that adversely affect productivity and morale(12). In another study, marijuana users reported that use of the drug impaired several important measures of life achievement including cognitive abilities, career status, social life, and physical and mental health(13)._

http://www.theroadout.org/drug_info...uana_use_on_learning_and_social_behavior.html


----------



## JBeukema

WillowTree said:


> Philobeado said:
> 
> 
> 
> A friend of mine died from lung cancer at age 47. He was a heavy pot smoker and didn't smoke tobacco. I've read that marijuana smoke is actually more cancer-causing than tobacco.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smoke one marijuana cigarette and you have smoke a pack of cigarettes.
Click to expand...

The overwhelming majority of clinical studies disagree, but don't let reality intrude- you never have before...


----------



## Foxfyre

ABikerSailor said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, I'll even follow up on one of the sources cited for you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Combination of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Motivational Incentives Enhance Treatment for Marijuana Addiction
> For Release April 1, 2006
> 
> New research supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National Institutes of Health, indicates that people who are trying to end their addiction to marijuana can benefit from a treatment program that combines motivational incentives with cognitive-behavioral therapy. The study is published in the April 2006 issue of the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
> 
> "Demand for effective treatments for marijuana addiction increased significantly in the United States during the 1990s," says NIDA Director Dr. Nora D. Volkow. "Marijuana remains one of the most widely used drugs of abuse. Heavy use of the drug impairs a person's ability to form memories, recall events, and shift attention from one thing to another. Someone who smokes marijuana regularly may have many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers do, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illnesses, and a heightened risk of lung infections. Thus, treatments to reduce and eliminate marijuana abuse will offer substantial public health benefits." . . . .
> 
> 
> NIDA - Newsroom - Combination of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Motivational Incentives Enhance Treatment for Marijuana Addiction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey.....dipshit.........I told you that it wasn't PHYSICALLY addictive.
> 
> And, for the record, you can become psychologically addicted to just about anything....porn, people, sex, etc.
Click to expand...


Ooooo, the more the evidence goes against a pro-legalization person, the more hostile they get.  Is that a side effect of the drug?

Rebuttal to your latest, increasingly insulting debate offering:



> Aside from the legal, moral, social, financial, personal, or political consequences marijuana can have on people using it, the drug is addictive, physically, as well as mentally. It is more addictive mentally, because of the drugs snail-like release rate from fat cells. Marijuana is lipophillic, meaning it has a tendency to deposit in fats cells, and can hang out in the body for a few days, (infrequent users), to several weeks for chronic long-term users. If a chronic user experienced the rapid release of THC from the body like narcotics, and benzos do, they would likely experience similar withdrawals as if doing harder drugs.
> Substance Abuse 101: Is marijuana physically addictive?



If you knew my background on this stuff Biker, I think you might choose to back off at this point.

Marijuana is less addictive than tobacco or alcohol and of the three, tobacco is the most addictive. But marijuana is addictive which is why it is a controlled substance.  The pro-legalization crowd puts out a lot of stuff and can even cite studies backing them up.  But, given the large amount of research done in the last couple or three decades, you won't be able to prove cannabis is not physically addictive because it is.

But those who so desperately want to believe that you cannot be come physically as well as mentally addicted to cannabis just can't make that case via any really credible source.  We've learned a whole lot in the last couple of decades


----------



## ABikerSailor

Wrong answer.  It's not addictive.  

But......like I said, this is the internet, and you can get anyone to agree with you if you're willing to go for the really obtuse studies.

Shit........there's one GOP idiot that makes money by creating web sites that say shit like cigarettes are good for you and cholesterol won't hurt you.

Nope, you've not convinced me yet.  And, like I said, your "sources" are suspect.

But go ahead Faux Failure, keep trying.


----------



## Foxfyre

Dream on Biker in that strange fact-void world of yours.  If you want to pretend that the sources I've provided are made-up sources, well that's your prerogative.  But if you had ever sat with a person withdrawing from the drug as I have, I think you might have a different perspective.


----------



## Luissa

boedicca said:


> The issue with pot, imo, is not so much the cancer threat but how it affects behavior.
> 
> People who smoke a lot of pot have motivation and productivity issues.  Students who use it do less well in school, and workers have a host of problems:
> 
> _Workers who smoke marijuana are more likely than their coworkers to have problems on the job. Several studies associate workers marijuana smoking with increased absences, tardiness, accidents, workers compensation claims, and job turnover. A study of municipal workers found that those who used marijuana on or off the job reported more Withdrawal behaviorssuch as leaving work without permission, daydreaming, spending work time on personal matters, and shirking tasksthat adversely affect productivity and morale(12). In another study, marijuana users reported that use of the drug impaired several important measures of life achievement including cognitive abilities, career status, social life, and physical and mental health(13)._
> 
> http://www.theroadout.org/drug_info...uana_use_on_learning_and_social_behavior.html



There is no cancer threat, no one has gotten lung cancer or any other type of cancer from smoking pot.
There is also no withdrawals from weed, and I know many people who smoke outside of work, who have no problem working and paying attention.


----------



## Luissa

Foxfyre said:


> Dream on Biker in that strange fact-void world of yours.  If you want to pretend that the sources I've provided are made-up sources, well that's your prerogative.  But if you had ever sat with a person withdrawing from the drug as I have, I think you might have a different perspective.



Marijuana is not addicting, it is habit forming. It is like chewing gum on a regular basis or chewing your nails. It has no withdrawals, and you don't "need" to do it to get over your cravings.


----------



## Luissa

Foxfyre said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, I'll even follow up on one of the sources cited for you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey.....dipshit.........I told you that it wasn't PHYSICALLY addictive.
> 
> And, for the record, you can become psychologically addicted to just about anything....porn, people, sex, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ooooo, the more the evidence goes against a pro-legalization person, the more hostile they get.  Is that a side effect of the drug?
> 
> Rebuttal to your latest, increasingly insulting debate offering:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from the legal, moral, social, financial, personal, or political consequences marijuana can have on people using it, the drug is addictive, physically, as well as mentally. It is more addictive mentally, because of the drugs snail-like release rate from fat cells. Marijuana is lipophillic, meaning it has a tendency to deposit in fats cells, and can hang out in the body for a few days, (infrequent users), to several weeks for chronic long-term users. If a chronic user experienced the rapid release of THC from the body like narcotics, and benzos do, they would likely experience similar withdrawals as if doing harder drugs.
> Substance Abuse 101: Is marijuana physically addictive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you knew my background on this stuff Biker, I think you might choose to back off at this point.
> 
> Marijuana is less addictive than tobacco or alcohol and of the three, tobacco is the most addictive. But marijuana is addictive which is why it is a controlled substance.  The pro-legalization crowd puts out a lot of stuff and can even cite studies backing them up.  But, given the large amount of research done in the last couple or three decades, you won't be able to prove cannabis is not physically addictive because it is.
> 
> But those who so desperately want to believe that you cannot be come physically as well as mentally addicted to cannabis just can't make that case via any really credible source.  We've learned a whole lot in the last couple of decades
Click to expand...


How about you prove it is addictive through a credible source?
I have done drugs, I used to do coke, I also used to drink a lot, and I have smoke pot for years. Trust me, pot is addicting. You know why I know this? Is because you don't have a come down, you don't get sick when you don't use it, and I have never had a problem going long periods of time without doing it.
And many doctors agree with me. You know nothing about marijuana, and shouldn't pretend that you do.


----------



## Foxfyre

Well all the evidence I've posted from quite credible sources apparently hasn't phased you, Luissa, so I doubt any additional ones I came up with would phase you either.

You want to believe Marijuana isn't addictive because you weren't addicted?  Nine out of ten people who use alcohol regularly don't become addicted either, but one out of ten will be.

Everybody who tries tobacco doesn't become addicted, but the majority who use it regularly do.

But you and Biker do make a cute couple.  And if like minded people are made for each other, well, there ya go.


----------



## Kalam

Marijuana is addictive? Bullshit. 

I can - and have - quit smoking for a month or so at a time in order to pass drug tests. I have no difficulty whatsoever.


----------



## Mr Natural

Kalam said:


> Marijuana is addictive? Bullshit.
> 
> I can - and have - quit smoking for a month or so at a time in order to pass drug tests. I have no difficulty whatsoever.




When I'm out, I'm out and that's it.  No big deal.

However, when I have, I tend to induge on a daily basis.


----------



## Foxfyre

I'll leave you guys with one more source:  The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency:



> *Exposing the Myth of Smoked Medical Marijuana
> Marijuana: The Facts*
> 
> Q: Does marijuana pose health risks to users?
> 
> Marijuana is an addictive drug1 with significant health consequences to its users and others. Many harmful short-term and long-term problems have been documented with its use:
> 
> 
> The short term effects of marijuana use include: memory loss, distorted perception, trouble with thinking and problem solving, loss of motor skills, decrease in muscle strength, increased heart rate, and anxiety2.
> 
> 
> In recent years there has been a dramatic increase in the number of emergency room mentions of marijuana use. From 1993-2000, the number of emergency room marijuana mentions more than tripled.
> 
> 
> There are also many long-term health consequences of marijuana use. According to the National Institutes of Health, studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day.
> 
> 
> Marijuana contains more than 400 chemicals, including most of the harmful substances found in tobacco smoke. Smoking one marijuana cigarette deposits about four times more tar into the lungs than a filtered tobacco cigarette.
> 
> 
> Harvard University researchers report that the risk of a heart attack is five times higher than usual in the hour after smoking marijuana.3
> 
> 
> Smoking marijuana also weakens the immune system4 and raises the risk of lung infections.5 A Columbia University study found that a control group smoking a single marijuana cigarette every other day for a year had a white-blood-cell count that was 39 percent lower than normal, thus damaging the immune system and making the user far more susceptible to infection and sickness.6
> 
> 
> Users can become dependent on marijuana to the point they must seek treatment to stop abusing it. In 1999, more than 200,000 Americans entered substance abuse treatment primarily for marijuana abuse and dependence.
> 
> 
> More teens are in treatment for marijuana use than for any other drug or for alcohol. Adolescent admissions to substance abuse facilities for marijuana grew from 43 percent of all adolescent admissions in 1994 to 60 percent in 1999.
> 
> 
> Marijuana is much stronger now than it was decades ago. According to data from the Potency Monitoring Project at the University of Mississippi, the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of commercial-grade marijuana rose from an average of 3.71 percent in 1985 to an average of 5.57 percent in 1998. The average THC content of U.S. produced sinsemilla increased from 3.2 percent in 1977 to 12.8 percent in 1997.7
> 
> Exposing the Myth of Smoked Medical Marijuana


----------



## Kalam

Foxfyre said:


> I'll leave you guys with one more source:  The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency:



I guess I should believe a federal agency rather than my own lying eyes. We all know how credible and rational the US government is when it comes to cannabis, after all.


----------



## Foxfyre

Kalam said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll leave you guys with one more source:  The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I should believe a federal agency rather than my own lying eyes. We all know how credible and rational the US government is when it comes to cannabis, after all.
Click to expand...


Using your logic, the person who imbibes alcohol and doesn't become alcoholic is proof that alcohol is not an addicting substance.   But if you had read half the comments in this thread you would know better than that.  Too bad that you didn't before you posted some really silly stuff.


----------



## Kalam

Mr Clean said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marijuana is addictive? Bullshit.
> 
> I can - and have - quit smoking for a month or so at a time in order to pass drug tests. I have no difficulty whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I'm out, I'm out and that's it.  No big deal.
> 
> However, when I have, I tend to induge on a daily basis.
Click to expand...


Same. Even when I have some, I don't smoke much during the week, and I very rarely get high more than twice a day on weekends. I've almost always been that way... no increases in frequency of use or other telltale signs of addiction.


----------



## Luissa

The locations of the cannabinoid receptors are most revealing of the way THC acts on the brain, but the importance of this determination is best understood in comparison with the effects of other drugs on the brain. Neurons are brain cells which process information. Neurotransmitter chemicals enable them to communicate with each other by their release into the gap between the neurons. This gap is called the synapse. Receptors are actually proteins in neurons which are specific to neurotransmitters, and which turn various cellular mechanisms on or off. Neurons can have thousands of receptors for different neurotransmitters, causing any neurotransmitter to have diverse effects in the brain. Drugs affect the production, release or re-uptake (a regulating mechanism) of various neurotransmitters. They also mimic or block actions of neurotransmitters, and can interfere with or enhance the mechanisms associated with the receptor. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter which is associated with extremely pleasurable sensations, so that the neural systems which trigger dopamine release are known as the "brain reward system." The key part of this system is identified as the mesocorticolimbic pathway, which links the dopamine-production area with the nucleus of accumbens in the limbic system, an area of the brain which is associated with the control of emotion and behavior. Cocaine, for example, blocks the re-uptake of dopamine so that the brain, lacking biofeedback, keeps on producing it. Amphetamines also block the re-uptake of dopamine, and stimulate additional production and release of it. Opiates activate neural pathways that increase dopamine production by mimicking opioid-peptide neurotransmitters which increase dopamine activity in the ventral tegmental area of the brain where the neurotransmitter originates. Opiates work on three receptor sites, and in effect restrain an inhibitory amino acid, gamma-aminobutyric acid, that otherwise would slow down or halt dopamine production. All of these substances can produce strong reinforcing properties that can seriously influence behavior. The rewarding properties of dopamine are what accounts for animal studies in which animals will forgo food and drink or willingly experience electric shocks in order to stimulate the brain reward system. It is now widely held that drugs of abuse directly or indirectly affect the brain reward system. The key clinical test of whether a substance is a drug of abuse potential or not is whether administration of the drug reduces the amount of electrical stimulation needed to produce self-stimulation response, or dopamine production. This is an indication that a drug has reinforcing properties, and that an individual's use of the drug can lead to addictive and other harmful behavior. To be precise, according to the Office of Technological Assessment (OTA): "The capacity to produce reinforcing effects is essential to any drug with significant abuse potential." Marijuana should no longer be considered a serious drug abuse because, as summarized by the OTA: "Animals will not self-administer THC in controlled studies . . . . Cannabinoids generally do not lower the threshold needed to get animals to self-stimulate the brain regard system, as do other drugs of abuse." Marijuana does not produce reinforcing effects. The definitive experiment which measures drug-induced dopamine production utilizes microdialysis is live, freely-moving rats. Brain microdialysis has proven that opiates, cocaine, amphetamines, nicotine and alcohol all affect dopamine production, whereas marijuana does not. This latest research confirms and explains Hollister's 1986 conclusion about cannabis and addiction: "Physical dependence is rarely encountered in the usual patterns, despite some degree of tolerance that may develop." Most important, the discoveries of Howlett and Devane, Herkenham and their associates demonstrate that the cannabinoid receptors do not influence the dopamine reward system. 

CANNABINOID RECEPTORS Research has enabled scientists to know which portions of the brain control various body functions, and this knowledge has been used to explain the pharmacological properties of drugs that activate receptor sites in the brain. There is a dense concentration of cannabinoid binding sites in the basal ganglia and the cerebellum of the base-brain, both of which affect movement and coordination. This discovery will aid in determining the actual physical mechanism by which THC affects spasticity and provides therapeutic benefits to patients with multiple sclerosis and other spastic disorders. While there are cannabinoid receptors in the ventromedial striatum and basal ganglia which are areas associated with dopamine production, no cannabinoid receptors have been found in dopamine-producing neurons, and as mentioned above, no reinforcing properties have been demonstrated in animal studies. There is one study by Gardner and Lowinson, involving inbred Lewis rats, in which doses of THC lowered the amount of electrical stimulation required to trigger the brain reward system. However, no one has been able to replicate the results with any other species of rat, or any other animal. The finding is believed to be the result of some inbred genetic variation in the inbred species, and is both widely mentioned in the literature and disregarded. According to Herkenham and his associates, "There are virtually no reports of fatal cannabis overdose in humans. The safety reflects the paucity of receptors in medullary nuclei that mediate respiratory and cardiovascular functions." This is also why cannabinoids have great promise as analgesics or painkillers, in that they do not depress the function of the heart or the lungs.
Marijuana and the Brain


Hello, I'm Dr. Allen Battle, a psychologist with UT Medical Group and professor of psychiatry at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center. Today we are talking about addictions.

Q: Is marijuana addictive?

Dr. Battle: No, marijuana is not addictive. It isn't addictive because the active ingredient in it, THC, does not become a part of the body chemistry. So that then, that body, would be dependent on it just as it is dependent on water or food. That is the essence of addition; it is physiological!

Gambling, food, sex, are not addictive. To use the word addiction in connection with these activities is to pervert the meaning of the word addiction. These things can become obsessions, that is to say, thoughts that repeat and repeat in spite of the individual not desiring to have them. They can become compulsions, in which the individual must act upon those thoughts. They can become habitual. They may be used as a way of escaping from problems in the here and now. But none of these things are physiological.

UT Medical Group, Inc. - Web Chat on Addictions

It is very simple, Marijuana is not physcially addicting.
And the only site you will find saying so, are government run.


----------



## Luissa

Foxfyre said:


> I'll leave you guys with one more source:  The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Exposing the Myth of Smoked Medical Marijuana
> Marijuana: The Facts*
> 
> Q: Does marijuana pose health risks to users?
> 
> Marijuana is an addictive drug1 with significant health consequences to its users and others. Many harmful short-term and long-term problems have been documented with its use:
> 
> 
> The short term effects of marijuana use include: memory loss, distorted perception, trouble with thinking and problem solving, loss of motor skills, decrease in muscle strength, increased heart rate, and anxiety2.
> 
> 
> In recent years there has been a dramatic increase in the number of emergency room mentions of marijuana use. From 1993-2000, the number of emergency room marijuana mentions more than tripled.
> 
> 
> There are also many long-term health consequences of marijuana use. According to the National Institutes of Health, studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day.
> 
> 
> Marijuana contains more than 400 chemicals, including most of the harmful substances found in tobacco smoke. Smoking one marijuana cigarette deposits about four times more tar into the lungs than a filtered tobacco cigarette.
> 
> 
> Harvard University researchers report that the risk of a heart attack is five times higher than usual in the hour after smoking marijuana.3
> 
> 
> Smoking marijuana also weakens the immune system4 and raises the risk of lung infections.5 A Columbia University study found that a control group smoking a single marijuana cigarette every other day for a year had a white-blood-cell count that was 39 percent lower than normal, thus damaging the immune system and making the user far more susceptible to infection and sickness.6
> 
> 
> Users can become dependent on marijuana to the point they must seek treatment to stop abusing it. In 1999, more than 200,000 Americans entered substance abuse treatment primarily for marijuana abuse and dependence.
> 
> 
> More teens are in treatment for marijuana use than for any other drug or for alcohol. Adolescent admissions to substance abuse facilities for marijuana grew from 43 percent of all adolescent admissions in 1994 to 60 percent in 1999.
> 
> 
> Marijuana is much stronger now than it was decades ago. According to data from the Potency Monitoring Project at the University of Mississippi, the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of commercial-grade marijuana rose from an average of 3.71 percent in 1985 to an average of 5.57 percent in 1998. The average THC content of U.S. produced sinsemilla increased from 3.2 percent in 1977 to 12.8 percent in 1997.7
> 
> Exposing the Myth of Smoked Medical Marijuana
Click to expand...


Show me a site that isn't put out by the government. 
The same government that said it killed monkeys, when in reality they cut off their oxgen supply. And the only reason why people usually seek treatment is because they are made to by family or by the court.


----------



## Luissa

It also is not much stronger than it was decades ago, that is also a myth. 
Like I said, stop listening to the government, they don't know shit.


----------



## Luissa

And marijuana in some people has shown to open up the air ways, and many studies show you are not prone to lung infections.


----------



## Kalam

Foxfyre said:


> Using your logic, the person who imbibes alcohol and doesn't become alcoholic is proof that alcohol is not an addicting substance.   But if you had read half the comments in this thread you would know better than that.  Too bad that you didn't before you posted some really silly stuff.


No, that isn't an extension of my logic at all. 

Alcohol causes a physical dependency to develop in frequent users. Marijuana does not. Both sides of my family have a history of substance abuse and I'm well aware of what a physical addiction feels like; I'm no special case. Any typical marijuana smoker can quit smoking at any time without suffering any consequences. Maybe if you had any first-hand experience with the herb you polemicize against you'd know this. Too bad you don't and your recourse seems to be peddling government bullshit.


----------



## JBeukema

Foxfyre said:


> I'll leave you guys with one more source:  The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency:



Hardly a disinterested party, especially given the racist roots of the DEA's existence


----------



## Luissa

> Fact: Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only occasionally. A small minority of Americans - less than 1 percent - smoke marijuana on a daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a dependence on marijuana. Some people who smoke marijuana heavily and frequently stop without difficulty. Others seek help from drug treatment professionals. Marijuana does not cause physical dependence. If people experience withdrawal symptoms at all, they are remarkably mild.
> 
> &#8226;United States. Dept. of Health and Human Services. DASIS Report Series, Differences in Marijuana Admissions Based on Source of Referral. 2002. June 24 2005.
> &#8226;Johnson, L.D., et al. &#8220;National Survey Results on Drug Use from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1994, Volume II: College Students and Young Adults.&#8221; Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996.
> &#8226;Kandel, D.B., et al. &#8220;Prevalence and demographic correlates of symptoms of dependence on cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana and cocaine in the U.S. population.&#8221; Drug and Alcohol Dependence 44 (1997):11-29.
> &#8226;Stephens, R.S., et al. &#8220;Adult marijuana users seeking treatment.&#8221; Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61 (1993): 1100-1104.






> Myth: Marijuana Is More Potent Today Than In The Past. Adults who used marijuana in the 1960s and 1970s fail to realize that when today's youth use marijuana they are using a much more dangerous drug.
> 
> Fact: When today's youth use marijuana, they are using the same drug used by youth in the 1960s and 1970s. A small number of low-THC samples seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration are used to calculate a dramatic increase in potency. However, these samples were not representative of the marijuana generally available to users during this era. Potency data from the early 1980s to the present are more reliable, and they show no increase in the average THC content of marijuana. Even if marijuana potency were to increase, it would not necessarily make the drug more dangerous. Marijuana that varies quite substantially in potency produces similar psychoactive effects.
> 
> &#8226;King LA, Carpentier C, Griffiths P. &#8220;Cannabis potency in Europe.&#8221; Addiction. 2005 Jul; 100(7):884-6
> 
> &#8226;Henneberger, Melinda. "Pot Surges Back, But It&#8217;s, Like, a Whole New World." New York Times 6 February 1994: E18.
> &#8226;Brown, Lee. &#8220;Interview with Lee Brown,&#8221; Dallas Morning News 21 May 1995.
> &#8226;Drug Enforcement Administration. U.S. Drug Threat Assessment, 1993. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1993.






> Fact: Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana, and in a large study presented to the American Thoracic Society in 2006, even heavy users of smoked marijuana were found not to have any increased risk of lung cancer. Unlike heavy tobacco smokers, heavy marijuana smokers exhibit no obstruction of the lung's small airway. That indicates that people will not develop emphysema from smoking marijuana.
> 
> &#8226;Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. &#8220;Legalization: Panacea or Pandora&#8217;s Box.&#8221; New York. (1995): 36.
> &#8226;Turner, Carlton E. The Marijuana Controversy. Rockville: American Council for Drug Education, 1981.
> &#8226;Nahas, Gabriel G. and Nicholas A. Pace. Letter. &#8220;Marijuana as Chemotherapy Aid Poses Hazards.&#8221; New York Times 4 December 1993: A20.
> &#8226;Inaba, Darryl S. and William E. Cohen. Uppers, Downers, All-Arounders: Physical and Mental Effects of Psychoactive Drugs. 2nd ed. Ashland: CNS Productions, 1995. 174.



Myths and Facts About Marijuana

Like I said, you don't know what you are talking about. But keep letting the DEA lie to you.


----------



## Foxfyre

Luissa, you are posting from sources put up deliberately to promote pro-legalization.  I am using sources with no dog in the fight whatsoever.

When you can find a credible source that isn't promoting pro-legalization to support the pro-legalization sources, then go for it.

I will tell you now that I took the training, did the studies, and obtained the education to be a certified substance abuse counselor.  So I have seen marijuana addiction up close and personal and I can assure you that it is quite real and, while not as tough as detoxing from alcohol or some of the harder drugs, getting off the stuff once addicted is not a pleasant experience.

It has also been my experience that those who are getting in trouble with a substance are often those who are almost frantic to prove that there is no problem at all.  And they say things like "I use it almost every day and I don't have a problem" or the infamous "I can quit any time I want to."

I am not on any kind of crusade here but the OP asked for a discussion of the subject.  I have contributed information that I hope is useful to at least some here.  I don't expect to have much influence with those who don't want to believe that information.


----------



## JBeukema

Fox posts from the agency tasked with the War on Minorities- er, War on Drugs- and accuses others of using biased sources?


----------



## Foxfyre

JBeukema said:


> Fox posts from the agency tasked with the War on Minorities- er, War on Drugs- and accuses others of using biased sources?



Can you imagine how much easier the DEA's job would be if cannabis was legalized?  I can imagine that they would relish the idea of having one less substance to track, monitor, and enforce.

To repeat:  I am not on any kind of crusade here but the OP asked for a discussion of the subject. I have contributed information that I hope is useful to at least some here. I don't expect to have much influence with those who don't want to believe that information.


----------



## Luissa

Foxfyre said:


> Luissa, you are posting from sources put up deliberately to promote pro-legalization.  I am using sources with no dog in the fight whatsoever.
> 
> When you can find a credible source that isn't promoting pro-legalization to support the pro-legalization sources, then go for it.
> 
> I will tell you now that I took the training, did the studies, and obtained the education to be a certified substance abuse counselor.  So I have seen marijuana addiction up close and personal and I can assure you that it is quite real and, while not as tough as detoxing from alcohol or some of the harder drugs, getting off the stuff once addicted is not a pleasant experience.
> 
> It has also been my experience that those who are getting in trouble with a substance are often those who are almost frantic to prove that there is no problem at all.  And they say things like "I use it almost every day and I don't have a problem" or the infamous "I can quit any time I want to."
> 
> I am not on any kind of crusade here but the OP asked for a discussion of the subject.  I have contributed information that I hope is useful to at least some here.  I don't expect to have much influence with those who don't want to believe that information.



Did you look at the sources? I clearly posted them for a reason.
I think the Dea was even one of them.


----------



## Foxfyre

Luissa said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa, you are posting from sources put up deliberately to promote pro-legalization.  I am using sources with no dog in the fight whatsoever.
> 
> When you can find a credible source that isn't promoting pro-legalization to support the pro-legalization sources, then go for it.
> 
> I will tell you now that I took the training, did the studies, and obtained the education to be a certified substance abuse counselor.  So I have seen marijuana addiction up close and personal and I can assure you that it is quite real and, while not as tough as detoxing from alcohol or some of the harder drugs, getting off the stuff once addicted is not a pleasant experience.
> 
> It has also been my experience that those who are getting in trouble with a substance are often those who are almost frantic to prove that there is no problem at all.  And they say things like "I use it almost every day and I don't have a problem" or the infamous "I can quit any time I want to."
> 
> I am not on any kind of crusade here but the OP asked for a discussion of the subject.  I have contributed information that I hope is useful to at least some here.  I don't expect to have much influence with those who don't want to believe that information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you look at the sources? I clearly posted them for a reason.
> I think the Dea was even one of them.
Click to expand...


I looked at the sources and I followed your link.  You aren't giving me any information that I haven't looked at dozens of times.

To repeat: I am not on any kind of crusade here but the OP asked for a discussion of the subject. I have contributed information that I hope is useful to at least some here. I don't expect to have much influence with those who don't want to believe that information.


----------



## Luissa

Foxfyre said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox posts from the agency tasked with the War on Minorities- er, War on Drugs- and accuses others of using biased sources?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine how much easier the DEA's job would be if cannabis was legalized?  I can imagine that they would relish the idea of having one less substance to track, monitor, and enforce.
> 
> To repeat:  I am not on any kind of crusade here but the OP asked for a discussion of the subject. I have contributed information that I hope is useful to at least some here. I don't expect to have much influence with those who don't want to believe that information.
Click to expand...


Think about how much money gets given to the DEA and CIA. The CIA is pretty much funded by the War on Drugs. Also look into who owns most of the private prisons in this country, and how many people are in there for non violent drug crimes.
You think the DEA and CIA want to give up their pay check?


----------



## JBeukema

There is no war on drugs.

The war on Weed  was started as a War on Hispanics and the War on Crack is nothing more than a War on Blacks. The war against opiates is fueled by fear of middle easteners, as the vast majority of of the opium comes from the ME.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Foxfyre said:


> Luissa, you are posting from sources put up deliberately to promote pro-legalization.  I am using sources with no dog in the fight whatsoever.
> 
> When you can find a credible source that isn't promoting pro-legalization to support the pro-legalization sources, then go for it.
> 
> I will tell you now that I took the training, did the studies, and obtained the education to be a certified substance abuse counselor.  So I have seen marijuana addiction up close and personal and I can assure you that it is quite real and, while not as tough as detoxing from alcohol or some of the harder drugs, getting off the stuff once addicted is not a pleasant experience.
> 
> It has also been my experience that those who are getting in trouble with a substance are often those who are almost frantic to prove that there is no problem at all.  And they say things like "I use it almost every day and I don't have a problem" or the infamous "I can quit any time I want to."
> 
> I am not on any kind of crusade here but the OP asked for a discussion of the subject.  I have contributed information that I hope is useful to at least some here.  I don't expect to have much influence with those who don't want to believe that information.



Hey Faux Failure, you did realize that it was made illegal because of racist ideas, right?



> Criminalization (1900s)
> 
> The first significant instance of cannabis regulation appeared in District of Columbia in 1906, though this law was not an outright prohibition.[2]. Regulations of cannabis followed in Massachusetts (1911), New York (1914) and Maine (1914). *Simultaneously the western states developed significant tensions regarding the influx of Mexicans to America. Later in that decade, negative tensions grew between the small farms and the large farms that used cheaper Mexican labor. Shortly after, the depression came which increased tensions, as jobs and resources soon became scarce. Many Mexicans commonly smoked marijuana and had brought the plant with them over the border*.[citation needed] In 1913 California passed the first state marijuana prohibition law, criminalizing the preparation of hemp and its products, the phrase Indian Hemp is sometimes used or what was referred to as "loco weed". These laws were passed not due to any widespread use or concern about cannabis, but as regulatory initiatives to discourage future use.[3][4] Other states followed with marijuana prohibition laws, including Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and Nebraska (1927).



Legal history of cannabis in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as "seeing" marijuana addiction?  Are you sure?  Most drug addicts use a combination of substances.  Was it a "pure" marijuana smoker, or were there other substances involved?  I'm pretty sure it was the latter as cannabis is NOT ADDICTIVE!

As far as your "experience" working with addicts?  Well....in 1994 while stationed at the Naval War College in Newport RI, they decided to make me a Drug and Alcohol Program Advisor, because I did volunteer work over at the detox in Fall River MA.  Over the 3 years I was stationed there, the base CO, as well as my entire chain of command and the Command Master Chief were all pushing for me to be selected for Counseling and Assistance Center counselor.  Those are the people that work with people going through inpatient detox for a month.  Yeah.......I know about this stuff.

By the way, want to know where all the bullshit rhetoric against cannabis came from?  A movie commissioned by Anslinger, who told Hollywood to put in every bad thing that they could to scare people.  The movie was called Reefer Madness.



> Reefer Madness
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> (Redirected from Reefer madness)
> Jump to:navigation, search
> This article is about the 1936 film. For other uses, see Reefer Madness (disambiguation).
> Reefer Madness
> 
> Theatrical release poster
> Directed by 	Louis Gasnier
> Produced by 	Dwain Esper
> Written by 	Paul Franklin
> Starring 	Dorothy Short
> Kenneth Craig
> Lillian Miles
> Dave O'Brien
> Thelma White
> Warren McCollum
> Carleton Young
> Distributed by 	Motion Picture Ventures
> New Line Cinema (rerelease)
> Release date(s) 	January 15, 1936
> Running time 	68 min.
> Country 	United States
> Language 	English
> Budget 	$100,000
> 
> Reefer Madness (aka Tell Your Children) is a 1936 American exploitation film revolving around the tragic events that ensue when high school students are lured by pushers to try "marihuana": a hit and run accident, manslaughter, suicide, rape, and descent into madness all ensue. The film was directed by Louis Gasnier and starred a cast composed of mostly unknown bit actors. It was originally financed by a church group and made under the title Tell Your Children.[1][2]
> 
> The film was intended to be shown to parents as a morality tale attempting to teach them about the dangers of cannabis use.[1] However, soon after the film was shot, it was purchased by producer Dwain Esper, who re-cut the film for distribution on the exploitation film circuit.[1] The film did not gain an audience until it was rediscovered in the 1970s and gained new life as a piece of unintentional comedy among cannabis smokers.[1][3] Today, it is in the public domain in the United States and is considered a cult film.[3] It inspired a musical satire, which premiered off-Broadway in 2001, and a Showtime film, Reefer Madness, based on the musical.



You're losing badly Faux Failure.  

And by the way, what is it exactly that makes Dole Pineapple more qualified than Harvard when it comes to speaking about cannabis?


----------



## Foxfyre

To repeat: I am not on any kind of crusade here but the OP asked for a discussion of the subject. I have contributed information that I hope is useful to at least some here. I don't expect to have much influence with those who don't want to believe that information.

And also to repeat:  It has been my experience that those developing a problem are the ones who are most desperate to deny that there is one.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Foxfyre said:


> To repeat: I am not on any kind of crusade here but the OP asked for a discussion of the subject. I have contributed information that I hope is useful to at least some here. I don't expect to have much influence with those who don't want to believe that information.
> 
> And also to repeat:  It has been my experience that those developing a problem are the ones who are most desperate to deny that there is one.



Bullshit and lies are never useful.  Yes you are on a crusade, you're telling everyone that pot is addictive and can hurt you. 

Those are lies.

Dole Pineapple doesn't know as much medically as Harvard and the Royal British Medical Society do.

The DEA has it's own spin on things as well.  That is why it's still illegal, they believe the lies of Reefer Madness.

Faux Failure, apparently you know when you're beat, because you're leaving this thread with your tail between your legs.

Get a life Failure.


----------



## Stainmaster

YoungLefty said:


> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.



Looks to me like the OP asked and answered this thread.  So, why the discussion?


----------



## boedicca

JBeukema said:


> There is no war on drugs.
> 
> The war on Weed  was started as a War on Hispanics and the War on Crack is nothing more than a War on Blacks. The war against opiates is fueled by fear of middle easteners, as the vast majority of of the opium comes from the ME.





The War on Poverty is more damaging to minorities than is the War on Drugs, although they are related.

Keep people poor, economically marginalized, and dependent on the government so they view drug dealing as a career and drug use as a lifestyle, and then use the illegal nature of drugs to weed out aggressive males from the gene pool.

Now who would come up with such a plan?


----------



## Foxfyre

ABikerSailor said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> To repeat: I am not on any kind of crusade here but the OP asked for a discussion of the subject. I have contributed information that I hope is useful to at least some here. I don't expect to have much influence with those who don't want to believe that information.
> 
> And also to repeat:  It has been my experience that those developing a problem are the ones who are most desperate to deny that there is one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit and lies are never useful.  Yes you are on a crusade, you're telling everyone that pot is addictive and can hurt you.
> 
> Those are lies.
> 
> Dole Pineapple doesn't know as much medically as Harvard and the Royal British Medical Society do.
> 
> The DEA has it's own spin on things as well.  That is why it's still illegal, they believe the lies of Reefer Madness.
> 
> Faux Failure, apparently you know when you're beat, because you're leaving this thread with your tail between your legs.
> 
> Get a life Failure.
Click to expand...


To repeat: I am not on any kind of crusade here but the OP asked for a discussion of the subject. I have contributed information that I hope is useful to at least some here. I don't expect to have much influence with those who don't want to believe that information.

And also to repeat: It has been my experience that those developing a problem are the ones who are most desperate to deny that there is one.

And still again to repeat:  It has been my experience that those who feel compelled to deny a problem become increasingly hostile, belligerant, insulting, and irrational.


----------



## JBeukema

boedicca said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no war on drugs.
> 
> The war on Weed  was started as a War on Hispanics and the War on Crack is nothing more than a War on Blacks. The war against opiates is fueled by fear of middle easteners, as the vast majority of of the opium comes from the ME.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The War on Poverty is more damaging to minorities than is the War on Drugs, although they are related.
> 
> Keep people poor, economically marginalized, and dependent on the government so they view drug dealing as a career and drug use as a lifestyle, and then use the illegal nature of drugs to weed out aggressive males from the gene pool.
> 
> Now who would come up with such a plan?
Click to expand...


IT WAS THE JEWS!






No, it was the ILLUMINATI!





Wait, I know who it was!





http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qYsD4xBz3-M/SnrR48RY0yI/AAAAAAAAB3Y/jHGDw3yOJrY/s400/Paul+Rand+1.jpg


CNNBC | Breaking News, Weather, Sports, Tech, Opinions, and Multimedia | By You, For You, And About You


----------



## Tom Clancy

Glenn Beck Chalkboard FTW. 

Rep for you.

Sorry.. I've always found it hilarious when he uses it..


----------



## ABikerSailor

Foxfyre said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> To repeat: I am not on any kind of crusade here but the OP asked for a discussion of the subject. I have contributed information that I hope is useful to at least some here. I don't expect to have much influence with those who don't want to believe that information.
> 
> And also to repeat:  It has been my experience that those developing a problem are the ones who are most desperate to deny that there is one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit and lies are never useful.  Yes you are on a crusade, you're telling everyone that pot is addictive and can hurt you.
> 
> Those are lies.
> 
> Dole Pineapple doesn't know as much medically as Harvard and the Royal British Medical Society do.
> 
> The DEA has it's own spin on things as well.  That is why it's still illegal, they believe the lies of Reefer Madness.
> 
> Faux Failure, apparently you know when you're beat, because you're leaving this thread with your tail between your legs.
> 
> Get a life Failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To repeat: I am not on any kind of crusade here but the OP asked for a discussion of the subject. I have contributed information that I hope is useful to at least some here. I don't expect to have much influence with those who don't want to believe that information.
> 
> And also to repeat: It has been my experience that those developing a problem are the ones who are most desperate to deny that there is one.
> 
> And still again to repeat:  It has been my experience that those who feel compelled to deny a problem become increasingly hostile, belligerant, insulting, and irrational.
Click to expand...


You mean, you've not been able to prove anything, so you're leaving.

Way to go Faux Failure.


----------



## Foxfyre

And still again to repeat: It has been my experience that those who feel compelled to deny a problem become increasingly hostile, belligerant, insulting, and irrational.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Hostile?  I cleaned it up for you Faux Failure.

Matter of fact, compared to posts addressed to idiots that pissed me off, that was pretty fucking tame, just ask anyone who's been here a while.

Fuck off you goddamn pedant, go please purists.


----------



## Foxfyre

And still again to repeat: It has been my experience that those who feel compelled to deny a problem become increasingly hostile, belligerant, insulting, and irrational not to mention they really struggle to recall words that they think will sting like anything.  (The potheads would probably come up with even better ones if their brains weren't so fried, but oh well. . . . )


----------



## Kalam

JBeukema said:


> There is no war on drugs.
> 
> The war on Weed  was started as a War on Hispanics and the War on Crack is nothing more than a War on Blacks. The war against opiates is fueled by fear of middle easteners, as the vast majority of of the opium comes from the ME.



I'd argue that the war on opiates targeted East Asians... opium in particular was associated with Chinese immigrants when they were part of America's pariah class.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Foxfyre said:


> And still again to repeat: It has been my experience that those who feel compelled to deny a problem become increasingly hostile, belligerant, insulting, and irrational not to mention they really struggle to recall words that they think will sting like anything.  (The potheads would probably come up with even better ones if their brains weren't so fried, but oh well. . . . )



Interesting.........especially considering the reasons that musicians, artists and creative people all state they smoke it.

Seems to help with the creative process.

All the nasty things I've said to you so far?  THOSE come from 20 years in the Navy.  What have YOU done for this country bitch?


----------



## Kalam

Foxfyre said:


> And still again to repeat: It has been my experience that those who feel compelled to deny a problem become increasingly hostile, belligerant, insulting, and irrational not to mention they really struggle to recall words that they think will sting like anything.  (The potheads would probably come up with even better ones if their brains weren't so fried, but oh well. . . . )



Interesting. It's been my experience that those who concern themselves with the personal choices of others are very insecure and generally unpleasant to be around. 

Have any drinks lately?


----------



## AVG-JOE

YoungLefty said:


> *Beer, Cigarettes & Marijuana -- What's the difference?*




At today's prices?

If you drink real beer and you know a guy, about $7.50


----------



## Foxfyre

Kalam said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And still again to repeat: It has been my experience that those who feel compelled to deny a problem become increasingly hostile, belligerant, insulting, and irrational not to mention they really struggle to recall words that they think will sting like anything.  (The potheads would probably come up with even better ones if their brains weren't so fried, but oh well. . . . )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. It's been my experience that those who concern themselves with the personal choices of others are very insecure and generally unpleasant to be around.
> 
> Have any drinks lately?
Click to expand...


I have a glass of wine on occasion, and I am a reformed cigarette smoker.

But those who are intellectually honest would see that I at no time have presumed to concern myself with the personal choices of any.  I rather have concerned myself with the thesis of the thread and have provided the information that I have regarding the difference between marijuana smoking, tobacco smoking, and alcohol consumed in the form of beer.

You and a few others don't like the information I provided.  That's your prerogative as is your opinion that I am insecure and unpleasant to be around.  I accept that as your opinion.  I also take it as a good excuse to extricate myself from the quite childish and stupid turn this debate has taken considering that the rest of you are so tolerant and accommodating and objective and  pleasant and all.

Do have a good day.

To everybody else, I am quite confident that the information I have posted is essentially accurate.  Beer in moderation or an occasional cigarette or a joint now and then isn't going to have any permanent adverse affects on anybody.  But there is a risk of increasing dependency and addiction in all leading to abuse of each substance, and that rarely is without consequence.


----------



## takethat

Okay, pots a drug, ok how many people are addicted to drugs given by the doctor? If I have a choice of prescription drugs or pot, I would take the pot, but it is illegal because the pharmictical companies can't corner the market on it. I have several health problems, most of which Marijuana would help me deal with better than the 10 different pills I am on. Back in the "70's" I watched my mother die from breast cancer. She was on 25 different pills that would not touch the pain or the complications of chemo. I got her smoking pot, that took out 18 of the drugs she was on cause it did what they were suppose to do better. She probably lived and extra bit of time because she could eat or sleep with no problems. I haven't, can't and won't because it is illegal, but if they would tax it like everything else it would help the hole obama has dug.


----------



## JBeukema

Foxfyre said:


> And still again to repeat: It has been my experience that those who feel compelled to deny a problem become increasingly hostile, belligerant, insulting, and irrational.



Like the problems you're having trying to back up your bullshit?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Foxfyre said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And still again to repeat: It has been my experience that those who feel compelled to deny a problem become increasingly hostile, belligerant, insulting, and irrational not to mention they really struggle to recall words that they think will sting like anything.  (The potheads would probably come up with even better ones if their brains weren't so fried, but oh well. . . . )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. It's been my experience that those who concern themselves with the personal choices of others are very insecure and generally unpleasant to be around.
> 
> Have any drinks lately?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a glass of wine on occasion, and I am a reformed cigarette smoker.
> 
> But those who are intellectually honest would see that I at no time have presumed to concern myself with the personal choices of any.  I rather have concerned myself with the thesis of the thread and have provided the information that I have regarding the difference between marijuana smoking, tobacco smoking, and alcohol consumed in the form of beer.
> 
> You and a few others don't like the information I provided.  That's your prerogative as is your opinion that I am insecure and unpleasant to be around.  I accept that as your opinion.  I also take it as a good excuse to extricate myself from the quite childish and stupid turn this debate has taken considering that the rest of you are so tolerant and accommodating and objective and  pleasant and all.
> 
> Do have a good day.
> 
> To everybody else, I am quite confident that the information I have posted is essentially accurate.  Beer in moderation or an occasional cigarette or a joint now and then isn't going to have any permanent adverse affects on anybody.  But there is a risk of increasing dependency and addiction in all leading to abuse of each substance, and that rarely is without consequence.
Click to expand...


Your last paragraph is total bullshit, take it from someone who was a drug and alcohol counselor who has worked in the field for over 8 years.

Additionally, there is ZERO actual medical data to suggest that it is possible to become addicted to cannabis.

There is also ZERO data for overdose from smoked cannabis.

You are still full of shit Faux Failure.


----------



## Father Time

Foxfyre said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox posts from the agency tasked with the War on Minorities- er, War on Drugs- and accuses others of using biased sources?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine how much easier the DEA's job would be if cannabis was legalized?  I can imagine that they would relish the idea of having one less substance to track, monitor, and enforce.
Click to expand...


They'd probably be out of a job. Also many people argue that we are losing the war on drugs and should just stop. The DEA's saying "no we're not losing we shouldn't stop".

If we legalize it some would say 'the DEA lost/they couldn't keep weed in check'. Also everyone talks of how much money we'd save not having to worry about weed, you think that wouldn't cut into their funds?

They have a stake and are not unbiased.


----------



## ABikerSailor

This year, California did an accounting of the taxes garnered from the sale of medical marijuana.  They then extrapolated it out to see what the tax revenue would be if it was legal.

It came out to 1.5 BILLION (with a B) per year.

Want to know why they won't legalize it now?  Big Pharma would take a hit because people would quit buying their drugs and grow their own weed.

Why is it illegal?  Because of racist greedy assholes who are narrow minded .


----------



## geauxtohell

ABikerSailor said:


> Your last paragraph is total bullshit, take it from someone who was a drug and alcohol counselor who has worked in the field for over 8 years.
> 
> Additionally, there is ZERO actual medical data to suggest that it is possible to become addicted to cannabis.
> 
> There is also ZERO data for overdose from smoked cannabis.
> 
> You are still full of shit Faux Failure.



I agree that MJ is not addictive (I even have problems with the "psychologically addictive" bullshit that is getting tossed around now) and the LD 50 of THC is higher than any person could ever ingest.  

However, MJ also hasn't been well studied for medical indications.  It's my biggest problem with medicinal MJ.  Some people believe it's going to be some sort of magic "cure-all".  In states that have legalized it for medicinal purposes, more than a few of the advocates (for all the right reasons) for medicinal MJ for people who really need it (terminally ill, chemo patients, etc.) are a little disgruntled that it's basically turned out to be what the detractors have said all along - back door legalization.  Pot for anxiety?  Give me a break.  

I'll support the medical MJ measure in my state in the upcoming months, but I know it's going to be a pain in the ass as a medical student.  The narc seekers are annoying enough.

They should just legalize it so that the medical establishment doesn't have to be hindered with the matter.  I am really losing faith with the sincerity behind the medicinal marijuana movement.


----------



## geauxtohell

Kalam said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no war on drugs.
> 
> The war on Weed  was started as a War on Hispanics and the War on Crack is nothing more than a War on Blacks. The war against opiates is fueled by fear of middle easteners, as the vast majority of of the opium comes from the ME.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd argue that the war on opiates targeted East Asians... opium in particular was associated with Chinese immigrants when they were part of America's pariah class.
Click to expand...


That and opiates are highly addictive and easily lethal.


----------



## geauxtohell

Luissa said:


> Hello, I'm Dr. Allen Battle, a psychologist with UT Medical Group and professor of psychiatry at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center. Today we are talking about addictions.
> 
> Q: Is marijuana addictive?
> 
> Dr. Battle: No, marijuana is not addictive. It isn't addictive because the active ingredient in it, THC, does not become a part of the body chemistry. So that then, that body, would be dependent on it just as it is dependent on water or food. That is the essence of addition; it is physiological!
> 
> Gambling, food, sex, are not addictive. To use the word addiction in connection with these activities is to pervert the meaning of the word addiction. These things can become obsessions, that is to say, thoughts that repeat and repeat in spite of the individual not desiring to have them. They can become compulsions, in which the individual must act upon those thoughts. They can become habitual. They may be used as a way of escaping from problems in the here and now. But none of these things are physiological.
> 
> UT Medical Group, Inc. - Web Chat on Addictions
> 
> It is very simple, Marijuana is not physcially addicting.
> And the only site you will find saying so, are government run.



Thanks for that.  That was the point I was trying to make with why I think "psychologically addictive" is an idiotic concept.

Anything can by "psychologically addictive".


----------



## xotoxi

YoungLefty said:


> *Beer, Cigarettes & Marijuana -- What's the difference?*


 
Beer is an alcoholic beverage.

Cigarettes are made of tobacco and used to inhale nicotine into one's lungs.

Marijuana is a leaf that when ignited and inhaled, delivers tetrahydrocannabinol into one's lungs.

I hope that is helpful.


----------



## JWBooth

Somebody, somewhere is worried you might be enjoying yourself by using one of those substances.

Many of those somebodies think that it is their life's duty to use the coercion of government to prevent you from doing so.


----------



## Kalam

geauxtohell said:


> That and opiates are highly addictive and easily lethal.



True, but addictiveness and lethality don't seem to factor in to many of the government's drug-related decisions. Looking at the legal penalties for possession of certain drugs tells me that much. One gram of ecstasy (pure or impure), which seems relatively harmless compared to most recreational drugs, will earn you the same sentence as a fucking kilogram of marijuana. A fucking kilogram. If you smoke an eighth a week, that's enough to last you well over five years. Then there's the enormous, racist disparity between crack and powder cocaine penalties...


----------



## geauxtohell

Kalam said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That and opiates are highly addictive and easily lethal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, but addictiveness and lethality don't seem to factor in to many of the government's drug-related decisions. Looking at the legal penalties for possession of certain drugs tells me that much. One gram of ecstasy (pure or impure), which seems relatively harmless compared to most recreational drugs, will earn you the same sentence as a fucking kilogram of marijuana. A fucking kilogram. If you smoke an eighth a week, that's enough to last you well over five years. Then there's the enormous, racist disparity between crack and powder cocaine penalties...
Click to expand...


They do to an extent.  I mean, there would be real harm in dumping opiates on the public.  Few PO drugs are as dangerous as they are.  As for possession penalties, you won't hear me argue that they are fair and un-biased.  However, that skips over the initial step of being illegal.  

I don't think ecstasy is a good example, btw, it's a "club drug" that is generally used by middle and upper middle class white kids.  I don't know much about MDMA, but I think a average dosage is about what 100 mg?  So a gram is about ten pills.


----------



## MizMolly

> Why is it illegal? Because of *racist* greedy assholes who are narrow minded .



I understand the greedy part...but why is this racial?


----------



## geauxtohell

MizMolly said:


> Why is it illegal? Because of *racist* greedy assholes who are narrow minded .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the greedy part...but why is this racial?
Click to expand...


MJ laws were enacted at a time when the only people who were really using MJ were african-americans and hispanics.

Kind of like that Buffet song:

"And only Jazz Musicians were smoking Marijuana."


----------



## MizMolly

> MJ laws were enacted at a time when the only people who were really using MJ were african-americans and hispanics.
> 
> Kind of like that Buffet song:
> 
> "And only Jazz Musicians were smoking Marijuana."


Some people will find race in every issue. I do not believe race was a factor when the laws were enacted. It was because of us long-haired hippy-types LOL


----------



## geauxtohell

MizMolly said:


> MJ laws were enacted at a time when the only people who were really using MJ were african-americans and hispanics.
> 
> Kind of like that Buffet song:
> 
> "And only Jazz Musicians were smoking Marijuana."
> 
> 
> 
> Some people will find race in every issue. I do not believe race was a factor when the laws were enacted. It was because of us long-haired hippy-types LOL
Click to expand...


You think Marijuana laws were first enacted in the 60's and 70's?  

At any rate, you can believe what you want, but the facts behind the matter are well established and have been well documented.


----------



## Foxfyre

I'm not going to participate in any more 'is too - is not' arguments with the potheads, but honestly people.  Don't any of you ever look up the facts before you post?  Or you depend strictly on sites put out there by the pro legalization crowd so they'll have something to link in hopes they can at least appear credible?

For those who swallowed the 'keep the black folks down' racists theory, at least look at the history of drug laws here:
Drug Law Timeline

And for those who think there should be no debate re medical marijuana, at least look at some of the debates withint the AMA on that very subject such as here:
Medical Use of Marijuana Divides AMA Delegates ? Psychiatric News

For the potheads who are desperate to believe that marijuana is not addictive and the only ones who say it is are government sources, note that Marijuana addiction is one of the focus areas of the U.K.'s TeenChallenge program which is one of the most effective drug treatment programs for young people in the world.
Addictions | Dependence help from Teen Challenge

And California Rehab offers some good information:
Marijuana Addiction and Treatment - California Rehabilitation and Treatment

The AMA would not recommend that Marijuane remain a Schedule 1 controlled substance if they did not know the drug was addictive.  All Schedule 1 drugs are considered addictive.


> The American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the British Medical Association have issued statements that marijuana should remain a controlled substance or not be endorsed as a medication. The Drug Enforcement Agency has issued clear statements that it does not target sick or dying people who use marijuana, but criminals engaged in growing and trafficking in the drug.


Marijuana Addiction and Treatment - California Rehabilitation and Treatment

Again I have no dog in this fight, and I am not about to tell anybody whether they should or should not use marijuana unless they presume to do so on my property.  But those of you who are not addicted, you should inform yourself of the facts and know the risks if you are going to put any potentially harmful substance in your body.

And no matter how many names you guys think up to call me, that will remain very good advice.


----------



## ABikerSailor

MizMolly said:


> MJ laws were enacted at a time when the only people who were really using MJ were african-americans and hispanics.
> 
> Kind of like that Buffet song:
> 
> "And only Jazz Musicians were smoking Marijuana."
> 
> 
> 
> Some people will find race in every issue. I do not believe race was a factor when the laws were enacted. It was because of us long-haired hippy-types LOL
Click to expand...


It wasn't just the hippies Miz Molly, it was the Blacks and the Hispanics...........



> In 1937 the F.D. Roosevelt administration crafted the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, the first US national law making cannabis possession illegal via an unpayable tax on the drug.
> 
> The name marijuana (Mexican Spanish marihuana, mariguana) is associated almost exclusively with the plant's psychoactive use. The term is now well known in English largely due to the efforts of American drug prohibitionists during the 1920s and 1930s. *The prohibitionists deliberately used a Mexican name for cannabis in order to turn the populace against the idea that it should be legal by playing to negative attitudes towards that nationality. (See 1937 Marihuana Tax Act). Those who demonized the drug by calling it marihuana omitted the fact that the "deadly marihuana" was identical to cannabis indica, which had at the time a reputation for pharmaceutical safety.*[4] It should be noted, however, that due to variations in the potency of the preparations, cannabis indica in the 1930s had lost most of its former popularity as a medical drug.[5]



Legality of cannabis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The guy that started the whole mess was an FBI agent named Anslinger.  He's also the guy that has created the current idea of cannabis that most people have in that it will make you hallucinate (it won't), will make you violent (it won't), will make you set fire to your house or do anything else you wouldn't do normally.

As a matter of fact, alcohol breaks down more inhibitions than marijuana does.

I'd advise you to take Faux Failure (FoxFyre) with a grain of salt.  They are looking for anything that they can get their mitts on that will support their claims in the form of pineapple companies and rehabilitation places.

Incidentally, those figures from Faux Failure are questionable.  If you want some real information, I'd suggest checking NORML's website.

They use real doctors and actual science on that site, not just propaganda.


----------



## Kalam

geauxtohell said:


> They do to an extent.  I mean, there would be real harm in dumping opiates on the public.  Few PO drugs are as dangerous as they are.


Acknowledged. I'm still skeptical of the government's true motives. My illusions of the "War on Drugs" having any legitimacy were shattered when I found out that the CIA is, or at least was, a major international trafficker of cocaine. I'm still absolutely bewildered by the absurdity of declaring certain drugs illegal, selling them behind the back of the population you're supposed to protect, and then imposing harsh penalties on those who peddle and purchase those substances on the retail level... but I digress as usual. 



geauxtohell said:


> As for possession penalties, you won't hear me argue that they are fair and un-biased.  However, that skips over the initial step of being illegal.
> 
> I don't think ecstasy is a good example, btw, it's a "club drug" that is generally used by middle and upper middle class white kids.  I don't know much about MDMA, but I think a average dosage is about what 100 mg?  So a gram is about ten pills.


I don't think that the criminalization of ecstasy involved ethnic discrimination or anything, I just think that it's an example of penalties run wild. Yeah, 100 mg seems to be near the high end of MDMA content for most tabs. Again, though, my understanding is that the actual content of the tablets doesn't matter to the fed as long as they contain and are sold as MDMA.


----------



## JBeukema

MizMolly said:


> MJ laws were enacted at a time when the only people who were really using MJ were african-americans and hispanics.
> 
> Kind of like that Buffet song:
> 
> "And only Jazz Musicians were smoking Marijuana."
> 
> 
> 
> Some people will find race in every issue. I do not believe race was a factor when the laws were enacted. It was because of us long-haired hippy-types LOL
Click to expand...

It was enacted before you idiots showed up.


It was enacted as a way to lock up Mexicans.


That's a simple fact of history.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Kalam said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do to an extent.  I mean, there would be real harm in dumping opiates on the public.  Few PO drugs are as dangerous as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Acknowledged. I'm still skeptical of the government's true motives. My illusions of the "War on Drugs" having any legitimacy were shattered when I found out that the CIA is, or at least was, a major international trafficker of cocaine. I'm still absolutely bewildered by the absurdity of declaring certain drugs illegal, selling them behind the back of the population you're supposed to protect, and then imposing harsh penalties on those who peddle and purchase those substances on the retail level... but I digress as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for possession penalties, you won't hear me argue that they are fair and un-biased.  However, that skips over the initial step of being illegal.
> 
> I don't think ecstasy is a good example, btw, it's a "club drug" that is generally used by middle and upper middle class white kids.  I don't know much about MDMA, but I think a average dosage is about what 100 mg?  So a gram is about ten pills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think that the criminalization of ecstasy involved ethnic discrimination or anything, I just think that it's an example of penalties run wild. Yeah, 100 mg seems to be near the high end of MDMA content for most tabs. Again, though, my understanding is that the actual content of the tablets doesn't matter to the fed as long as they contain and are sold as MDMA.
Click to expand...


Interesting little side note..........

MDMA (Ecstasy) was originally developed by psychologists as a way to bring a person's feelings of empathy and love closer to the surface of their conscious mind.  And, when they developed this drug, they also took time to make sure it had no ill effects on the body.

They then tested it out on couples going through therapy.  When the trials were over?  The people taking it wanted to continue using it.

Ecstasy is not harmful.  It's the pseudo ecstasy that causes problems, not pharmaceutical grade stuff.


----------



## geauxtohell

Kalam said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do to an extent.  I mean, there would be real harm in dumping opiates on the public.  Few PO drugs are as dangerous as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Acknowledged. I'm still skeptical of the government's true motives. My illusions of the "War on Drugs" having any legitimacy were shattered when I found out that the CIA is, or at least was, a major international trafficker of cocaine. I'm still absolutely bewildered by the absurdity of declaring certain drugs illegal, selling them behind the back of the population you're supposed to protect, and then imposing harsh penalties on those who peddle and purchase those substances on the retail level... but I digress as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for possession penalties, you won't hear me argue that they are fair and un-biased.  However, that skips over the initial step of being illegal.
> 
> I don't think ecstasy is a good example, btw, it's a "club drug" that is generally used by middle and upper middle class white kids.  I don't know much about MDMA, but I think a average dosage is about what 100 mg?  So a gram is about ten pills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think that the criminalization of ecstasy involved ethnic discrimination or anything, I just think that it's an example of penalties run wild. Yeah, 100 mg seems to be near the high end of MDMA content for most tabs. Again, though, my understanding is that the actual content of the tablets doesn't matter to the fed as long as they contain and are sold as MDMA.
Click to expand...


I'd imagine the government isn't terribly concerned with the purity of the MDMA as long as it is anywhere near the amount to be psychoactive.  

I am more bewildered how an amphetamine can work in the manner like MDMA does.  It's like methylphenadate (ritalin) being used to help people concentrate.  It's paradoxical.  However, there is so much about the brain that we don't know.  I know that, comparative to cocaine, which blocks norepinephrine uptake, amphetamines stimulate it's release and block it's re-uptake and have a longer half life.  

Sorry for the digression.

At any rate, I think it's interesting that MDMA is being used to treat extreme PTSD (at least in clinical trials).

Ecstasy is the key to treating PTSD - Times Online


----------



## geauxtohell

ABikerSailor said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do to an extent.  I mean, there would be real harm in dumping opiates on the public.  Few PO drugs are as dangerous as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Acknowledged. I'm still skeptical of the government's true motives. My illusions of the "War on Drugs" having any legitimacy were shattered when I found out that the CIA is, or at least was, a major international trafficker of cocaine. I'm still absolutely bewildered by the absurdity of declaring certain drugs illegal, selling them behind the back of the population you're supposed to protect, and then imposing harsh penalties on those who peddle and purchase those substances on the retail level... but I digress as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for possession penalties, you won't hear me argue that they are fair and un-biased.  However, that skips over the initial step of being illegal.
> 
> I don't think ecstasy is a good example, btw, it's a "club drug" that is generally used by middle and upper middle class white kids.  I don't know much about MDMA, but I think a average dosage is about what 100 mg?  So a gram is about ten pills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think that the criminalization of ecstasy involved ethnic discrimination or anything, I just think that it's an example of penalties run wild. Yeah, 100 mg seems to be near the high end of MDMA content for most tabs. Again, though, my understanding is that the actual content of the tablets doesn't matter to the fed as long as they contain and are sold as MDMA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting little side note..........
> 
> MDMA (Ecstasy) was originally developed by psychologists as a way to bring a person's feelings of empathy and love closer to the surface of their conscious mind.  And, when they developed this drug, they also took time to make sure it had no ill effects on the body.
> 
> They then tested it out on couples going through therapy.  When the trials were over?  The people taking it wanted to continue using it.
> 
> Ecstasy is not harmful.  It's the pseudo ecstasy that causes problems, not pharmaceutical grade stuff.
Click to expand...


We posted on top of each other, anyways the link I posted has some good info about it.  It is an amphetamine, so it's not harmless but I think you are right that a lot of the hysteria about the drug is due to impure street drugs being sold as MDMA.


----------



## Douger

Cecilie1200 said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, no one died from a fire, slip and fall, bicycle, bear or any number of other things not included on your list.  Wonder how many people were high when they died in the car accident, were hunting with a firearm or used another drug in conjunction with marijuana?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem with statistics. Most of the time, people who are smoking pot are also doing other drugs, including alcohol. That's why the statistics here are almost completely meaningless. Except the obvious one - no person EVER has died of an overdose of marijuana.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that marijuana is significantly less dangerous a drug than alcohol or cigarettes - and the fact that it is illegal while the others are not is due not to facts about the drug, but other political maneuvering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also necessary to consider that marijuana-related illnesses and incidents (such as traffic accidents) are usually just lumped into the stats for other substances.  The stats for the health effects of tobacco, for example, are derived from statistics on a variety of health problems linked to tobacco, whether the sufferer actually smoked or not.  This means that if long-term marijuana smoking DID cause lung cancer and emphysemia, we'd never know because it would just be labeled a "smoking-related death" and left at that.
> 
> Likewise, people DO get in traffic accidents under the influence of marijuana for the same reasons they do with alcohol:  both of them screw with your reaction time and judgement ability.  But a DUI is a DUI, and they all get counted together, not separated out by WHAT you were "under the influence" of.
> 
> Another thing to consider is that marijuana use, being illegal, isn't anything like as widespread as either alcohol and tobacco, so OF COURSE it doesn't have comparable statistics.
Click to expand...


I know FAR more people that smoke weed than cigarettes.


----------



## csbarry

YoungLefty said:


> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.



You would have been better served. and dealt with far fewer far reaching comments had you asked why cigarettes and alcohol are legal and marijuana isn't. Then your theory of marijuana being far less harmful or deadly is certainly justifiable. For the record, I believe that all three should be legal. It should be an individuals choice whether to partake or not. If all three cannot be legal, all three should be illegal. Just because the government cannot tax all the marijuana that might be available, is no reason to outlaw it; nor is it a reason for legally destroying an individuals life.


----------



## csbarry

Here's something for ya' all to chew on ...

Legal history of cannabis in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know........Carrie Nation proved that prohibition didn't work.  Matter of fact, that is where organized crime got it's biggest growth spurt.

Now?  We've got the same problem at the border with drugs and violence and crime.  If cannabis was legal, I'd be willing to bet that you'd see a lot of the cartels convert over to cannabis cultivation, because if it was legal and able to be imported here, they wouldn't have to use violence and crime.

Incidentally, when you've got a choice between cocaine (illegal) and cannabis (hopefully legal soon), you naturally go towards the choice that is the least hassle.

Want to know why prohibition never works?  Because people want a release to get rid of their stress.

Incidentally, cannabis testing on people with PTSD has shown great promise in helping them out.


----------



## Father Time

What exactly was Carrie Nation? Was it anything like this:


----------



## Cecilie1200

Douger said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem with statistics. Most of the time, people who are smoking pot are also doing other drugs, including alcohol. That's why the statistics here are almost completely meaningless. Except the obvious one - no person EVER has died of an overdose of marijuana.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that marijuana is significantly less dangerous a drug than alcohol or cigarettes - and the fact that it is illegal while the others are not is due not to facts about the drug, but other political maneuvering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's also necessary to consider that marijuana-related illnesses and incidents (such as traffic accidents) are usually just lumped into the stats for other substances.  The stats for the health effects of tobacco, for example, are derived from statistics on a variety of health problems linked to tobacco, whether the sufferer actually smoked or not.  This means that if long-term marijuana smoking DID cause lung cancer and emphysemia, we'd never know because it would just be labeled a "smoking-related death" and left at that.
> 
> Likewise, people DO get in traffic accidents under the influence of marijuana for the same reasons they do with alcohol:  both of them screw with your reaction time and judgement ability.  But a DUI is a DUI, and they all get counted together, not separated out by WHAT you were "under the influence" of.
> 
> Another thing to consider is that marijuana use, being illegal, isn't anything like as widespread as either alcohol and tobacco, so OF COURSE it doesn't have comparable statistics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know FAR more people that smoke weed than cigarettes.
Click to expand...


Which says a lot about YOU - not that it was much of a revelation to anyone who's experienced your complete lack of anything to add - and fuck-all about society at large.  Thanks for continuing your unbroken trend of having nothing whatsoever to add.


----------



## Toro

The War on Drugs has been an unmitigated disaster.

Too many are in prison for ridiculous sentences, we spend billions and billions every year to incarcerate people, it corrupts nations, it funds terrorists and it gives enormous wealth and power to criminal syndicates.  

Those arguing prohibition seem not to understand how markets work.  There is demand, it will be supplied.  If it is made illegal, then the price will go up, drawing in organized crime who will supply that demand.  Better that it be legalized, taxed and regulated so that the profits and proceeds can go to law-abiding people and to fund spending.


----------



## AquaAthena

YoungLefty said:


> Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
> - 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
> - 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
> Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.



To answer your topic question: One isn't a mind altering substance. Just really enjoyable. I don't miss it though....[well once in a while]


----------



## jessica

The only reason marijuana is ever a gateway drug is because it exposes peaceful pot smokers to the dealers who are likely to also traffic other, more dangerous sustances. If we could just walk into our local liquor store or drug store and purchase a federally-regulated and taxed product like we can with booze and cigs, then our upstanding, de-criminalized stoners could get on with their lives without worrying about going to prison with rapists and murderers just for passing the peace pipe.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know.........pot is no more a "gateway drug" than alcohol is.

And yes, you're right Jessica, if it was available at the corner convenience store, the exposure to other drugs would be greatly lessened.

Good point.


----------



## Richie90

I think all of them do not have any much differences. They are all harmful and bad to human's health.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Rat in the Hat said:


> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do cigarettes have to do with this? Are you claiming they are also a perception altering substance??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. But cigarettes do cause 435,000 deaths a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But how many people die from "cigarette related incidents"??
Click to expand...


"Based on a worldwide study of smoking-related fire and disaster data, University of California-Davis epidemiologists show that smoking is a leading global cause of fires and death from fires, resulting in an estimated cost of nearly $7 billion in the United States and $27.2 billion worldwide in 1998. The study was published in the August issue of Preventive Medicine.

Fires cause 1% of the global burden of disease and 300,000 deaths per year worldwide. Smoking causes an estimated 30% of fire deaths in the United States and 10% of fire deaths worldwide"
See:  Smoking is a major cause of fires, study says


----------



## Wry Catcher

jessica said:


> The only reason marijuana is ever a gateway drug is because it exposes peaceful pot smokers to the dealers who are likely to also traffic other, more dangerous sustances. If we could just walk into our local liquor store or drug store and purchase a federally-regulated and taxed product like we can with booze and cigs, then our upstanding, de-criminalized stoners could get on with their lives without worrying about going to prison with rapists and murderers just for passing the peace pipe.



Good points.  I would suggest that the regulation of MJ be determined by each state.


----------



## editec

MizMolly said:


> MJ laws were enacted at a time when the only people who were really using MJ were african-americans and hispanics.
> 
> Kind of like that Buffet song:
> 
> "And only Jazz Musicians were smoking Marijuana."
> 
> 
> 
> Some people will find race in every issue. I do not believe race was a factor when the laws were enacted. It was because of us long-haired hippy-types LOL
Click to expand...

 
Well you're wrong about that. Racism had much to do with the original marijuana prohibition of the 30s.

But as to the WAR on drugs and the continuation of marijuana as a CLASS A drug?

There you can credit NiXXon's hatred of the hippies (circa 1972 or so) for keeping that drug in the same class as heroin and cocaine.

The war on drugs was a NiXXon invention, ya know.

Nixxon refused to leaglize it as his own panel of experts suggested he do precisely because the people protesting the war smoked dope.


----------



## Wry Catcher

editec said:


> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJ laws were enacted at a time when the only people who were really using MJ were african-americans and hispanics.
> 
> Kind of like that Buffet song:
> 
> "And only Jazz Musicians were smoking Marijuana."
> 
> 
> 
> Some people will find race in every issue. I do not believe race was a factor when the laws were enacted. It was because of us long-haired hippy-types LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you're wrong about that. Racism had much to do with the original marijuana prohibition of the 30s.
> 
> But as to the WAR on drugs and the continuation of marijuana as a CLASS A drug?
> 
> There you can credit NiXXon's hatred of the hippies (circa 1972 or so) for keeping that drug in the same class as heroin and cocaine.
> 
> The war on drugs was a NiXXon invention, ya know.
> 
> Nixxon refused to leaglize it as his own panel of experts suggested he do precisely because the people protesting the war smoked dope.
Click to expand...


MJ is not illegal; it is a schedule I drug.  If the Feds removed MJ from schedule I and made the MJ stamptax reasonable, each state would be able to regulate its production, possession and raise revenue via taxation - as would the federal government - and reduce the cost of enforcement.  It might also mitigate organized crime by removing a source of income, much as the repeal of prohibition closed that black market.  The black market in MJ is a multi-billion dollar economy; continuing to do what we've been doing for the past 50 years is insane.


----------



## Foxfyre

The Marijuana on the street these days is of much higher quality and at least twice as potent as the drug the hippies were smoking back in the 60's.  And though marijuana addiction is still less likely than is addiction to other narcotic drugs or alochol or nicotine, the higher potency is increasing the rate of addition to pot.

There is something to say for decriminalizing it and regulating it and that would relieve the prison populations, etc.   I doubt though that it would eliminate the black market.  And unless you don't have a problem with kids having access to it in large numbers, it is almost a given that if you remove much of their market from the adult population, the dealers will target the kids a whole lot more.

In other words, there are excellent arguments for all sides of the problem.  But the unintended negative consequences no matter WHAT the policy are also a fact, and must be taken into consideration when establishing a policy.


----------



## JBeukema

Foxfyre said:


> The Marijuana on the street these days is of much higher quality and at least twice as potent as the drug the hippies were smoking back in the 60's.



fail

*Myth: Marijuana Is More Potent Today Than In  The Past. Adults who used marijuana in the 1960s and 1970s fail to  realize that when today's youth use marijuana they are using a much more  dangerous drug.*
*Fact:* When today's youth use marijuana, they are  using the same drug used by youth in the 1960s and 1970s. A small number  of low-THC samples seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration are  used to calculate a dramatic increase in potency. However, these samples  were not representative of the marijuana generally available to users  during this era. Potency data from the early 1980s to the present are  more reliable, and they show no increase in the average THC content of  marijuana. Even if marijuana potency were to increase, it would not  necessarily make the drug more dangerous. Marijuana that varies quite  substantially in potency produces similar psychoactive effects.


 King LA, Carpentier C, Griffiths P. Cannabis potency in Europe. Addiction.  2005 Jul; 100(7):884-6

 Henneberger, Melinda. "Pot Surges Back, But Its, Like, a Whole New  World." New York Times 6 February 1994: E18.
 

 Brown, Lee. Interview with Lee Brown, Dallas Morning News  21 May 1995.
 

 Drug Enforcement Administration. U.S. Drug Threat Assessment,  1993. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1993.
 

 Kleiman, Mark A.R. Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control.  Westport: Greenwood Press, 1989. 29.
 

 Bennett, William. Director of National Drug Control Policy, remarks  at Conference of Mayors. 23 April 1990.



> And though marijuana addiction is still less likely than is addiction to other narcotic drugs or alochol or nicotine, the higher potency is increasing the rate of addition to pot.


fail

see above +
*Myth: Marijuana is Highly Addictive. Long term marijuana  users experience physical dependence and withdrawal, and often need  professional drug treatment to break their marijuana habits.* *Fact:* Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only  occasionally. A small minority of Americans - less than 1 percent -  smoke marijuana on a daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a  dependence on marijuana. Some people who smoke marijuana heavily and  frequently stop without difficulty. Others seek help from drug treatment  professionals. Marijuana does not cause physical dependence. If people  experience withdrawal symptoms at all, they are remarkably mild.


 United States. Dept. of Health and Human Services. DASIS Report  Series, Differences in Marijuana Admissions Based on Source of Referral.  2002. June 24 2005.
 

 Johnson, L.D., et al. National Survey Results on Drug Use from the  Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1994, Volume II: College Students and  Young Adults. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human  Services, 1996.
 

 Kandel, D.B., et al. Prevalence and demographic correlates of  symptoms of dependence on cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana and cocaine in  the U.S. population. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 44  (1997):11-29.
 

 Stephens, R.S., et al. Adult marijuana users seeking treatment. Journal  of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61 (1993): 1100-1104.

Myths and Facts About Marijuana


----------



## Wry Catcher

Foxfyre said:


> The Marijuana on the street these days is of much higher quality and at least twice as potent as the drug the hippies were smoking back in the 60's.  And though marijuana addiction is still less likely than is addiction to other narcotic drugs or alochol or nicotine, the higher potency is increasing the rate of addition to pot.
> 
> There is something to say for decriminalizing it and regulating it and that would relieve the prison populations, etc.   I doubt though that it would eliminate the black market.  And unless you don't have a problem with kids having access to it in large numbers, it is almost a given that if you remove much of their market from the adult population, the dealers will target the kids a whole lot more.
> 
> In other words, there are excellent arguments for all sides of the problem.  But the unintended negative consequences no matter WHAT the policy are also a fact, and must be taken into consideration when establishing a policy.



Kids have access to MJ today, and in doing so are at best only a few degrees of separation from the criminal element who produce, sell and protect their product.  This element is also able to modify the bud with other ingrediants, some of which may cause greater harm then the weed itself.
The black market will always exist, but consider the black market during Prohibition and the BM after after repeal.  Organized crime flourishes when 'vices' are outlawed - consider prostitution, gambling, alcohol and other drugs.  Each vice leads to other serious problems, STD's, addictions and crime are the most obvious.
Isn't it better (and saner) to contol vices rather than to try (unsuccessfully) to banish them?


----------

