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

[JBeukema]

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.

•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.

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.

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.

•Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. “Legalization: Panacea or Pandora’s Box.” 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. “Marijuana as Chemotherapy Aid Poses Hazards.” 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

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]

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]

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, 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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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.

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.

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.