Marijuana: the non-hate thread...

[insein]

Another major point to be made is that the government cant regulate anything. So why do we keep giving it money to run these campaigns of regulation?

Stop prostitution? Who the hell is that protecting? The prostitutes or the johns? They are 2 consenting adults who want to exchange money for sex. ITs the oldest profession in the world. Make it legal and let the industry regulate itself. Unions would form to create better work conditions for the women and men would be assured that women were clean (or as clean as you can be in that line of work). The point is, capitalism would clean up this business in its own way much better then the government has by criminalizing it.

Stop drugs? Who are we protecting there? The kids? Again, FUCK THE KIDS! Kids have parents. Kids have brains. If kids cant figure it out through guidance or through common sense then they are hopeless anyway. Stop wasting the money. And NO i dont want it to goto better use for the government. I want it to be returned to the taxpayers. Charge us less in taxes by cutting this worthless theft program.

Thats basically my bottomline here. We spend too much on the protection of people from themselves. People are going to kill themselves. Whether its through drug addiction, lung cancer from smoking, alcohol overdose, car accident, gunshot to the head, falling on a metal rake accidentally while walking through the yard, its going to happen. So why do we spend millions trying to save people so that we have to spend billions more to raise them?

 

[no1tovote4]

And there are plenty of people that die of lung cancer that never smoked a day in their life.

There has not to my knowledge been a study that showed a link between lung cancer and marijuana smoke (and marijuana smoke is significantly different than tobacco smoke in its constitution).

If that were true (http://www.personalmd.com/news/a1998081808.shtml) it would not mean that it doesn't exist, only that it hasn't been studied to full effect (click the link, it has been studied and shown to cause the same pre-cancerous sores that smoking causes.) Only 10% of people that die from Lung Cancer never smoked at all, much of them are from Construction Causes such as Asbestos, the levels of Lung Cancer that can be attributed directly to smoking, whether cigarette, MJ, or Crack is amazing comparatively.

There are plenty of ways of ingesting marijuana, none of which have been shown to cause cancer.

Once again, that is shown to be incorrect, some have been shown to do just that. Another site for you:

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html

And a quote from that site:

"Marijuana use also has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens(12, 13). In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke(14). It also produces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form—levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells(15). Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may increase the risk of cancer more than smoking tobacco."

It's interesting that tobacco is shown to cause cancer even when NOT smoked - people chewing tobacco tend to get lip cancer for instance.

Another quote from the second site:

"Some of marijuana’s adverse health effects may occur because THC impairs the immune system’s ability to fight off infectious diseases and cancer. In laboratory experiments that exposed animal and human cells to THC or other marijuana ingredients, the normal disease-preventing reactions of many of the key types of immune cells were inhibited(16). In other studies, mice exposed to THC or related substances were more likely than unexposed mice to develop bacterial infections and tumors(17, 18)."

(the bold and italics are mine)

One reason for the difference is that use patter of marijuana are quite different from the habitual patterns associated with tobacco.

Nevertheless, there are other health consequences from habitual smoke inhalation, regardless of the source.

But this is not a valid reason for prohibition.


Andy

As I stated, I agree with decriminalization and regulation of the drug. However the health effects cannot be ignored or wished away...

The health risks alone are not the only danger. As I stated earlier the effects (reaction time and judgement) are far longer lasing than those of alcohol (water soluble) and MJ (fat soluble) therefore habitual users should be denied the priveledge of operating all heavy machinery including that of motor vehicles.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Stop drugs? Who are we protecting there? The kids? Again, FUCK THE KIDS! Kids have parents. Kids have brains. If kids cant figure it out through guidance or through common sense then they are hopeless anyway. Stop wasting the money.

The kids are MORE FUCKED by the current system. Since the "war on drugs" began, drug use has gone UP (not down) among 12-17 year olds.


Heroin use up 400%

Cocaine/crack use up 1200 %

Marijuana use up 1800%


Why?

Simple: DRUG DEALERS DON'T ASK FOR ID. Ask any kid what's easier to get - a bag of drugs or a bottle of booze, and they'll tell you the drugs are easier to get.


Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may increase the risk of cancer more than smoking tobacco."

What they don't mention is that tobacco smokers smoke often and all day long. Most marijuana users smoke infrequently, and exhibit completely different use patterns. For instance, a cigarette smoker will smoke entire cigarettes themselves - as many as 40 a day for a typical 2 pack person.

A marijuana smoker will SHARE a SINGLE marijuana cigarette among several friends. Say here that 4 people each smoke 1/4 of a "joint". In that day. We're talking orders of magnitude less smoke inhaled compared to the cigarette smoker.

As I stated, I agree with decriminalization and regulation of the drug. However the health effects cannot be ignored or wished away...

However, considering the large portion of that population that uses, we are *not* seeing the same quantifiable level of "health consequences" - and if we did, you can be certain that NIDA would be making a big deal about it.

The health risks alone are not the only danger. As I stated earlier the effects (reaction time and judgement) are far longer lasing than those of alcohol (water soluble) and MJ (fat soluble) therefore habitual users should be denied the priveledge of operating all heavy machinery including that of motor vehicles.

Here you are making a leap in logic.

It is not MJ that is fat soluble - it is the metabolites. the metabolites are not what make people stoned - they are the by product of the body breaking down MJ - they tend to stick in fat cells, and thus are detectable long after the effects of marijuana are over.

Whether or not someone is capable of driving X hours after ingestion of Y amount of EITHER Alcohol or Marijuana has much to do with how big Y is in the equation.



Andy

 

[OCA]

Just the fact that the effects only last for about 35 minutes is perfect proof that it is less dangerous than alcohol. This lessens the probability that you would take the road at your most vulnerable point.

You must be smoking mexican ditch weed with stems and seeds because I can attest to the fact of some hybrid shit from the Northwest lasting for many hours.

 

[no1tovote4]

What they don't mention is that tobacco smokers smoke often and all day long. Most marijuana users smoke infrequently, and exhibit completely different use patterns. For instance, a cigarette smoker will smoke entire cigarettes themselves - as many as 40 a day for a typical 2 pack person.

And here you are using a logical fallacy, one study showed that users who didn't smoke other than MJ had the same pre-cancerous sores as did those who smoke only tobacco, the second study showed that even if it wasn't smoked it still limited the ability of the body to fight off cancer as well as other infections and therefore was STILL carcinogenic. Here you skip the facts of the study to attempt to dismiss it by using misdirection by saying they use it differently, it isn't salient to the actual findings of the studies. That they use the drugs differently did not change the fact that MJ is carcinogenic.

A marijuana smoker will SHARE a SINGLE marijuana cigarette among several friends. Say here that 4 people each smoke 1/4 of a "joint". In that day. We're talking orders of magnitude less smoke inhaled compared to the cigarette smoker.

Yet they are still effected with pre-cancerous signs. Amazing.

However, considering the large portion of that population that uses, we are *not* seeing the same quantifiable level of "health consequences" - and if we did, you can be certain that NIDA would be making a big deal about it.

NIDA was the study that showed your assertion that Cannabis was not carcinogenic unless smoked to be inaccurate.

Here you are making a leap in logic.

It is not MJ that is fat soluble - it is the metabolites. the metabolites are not what make people stoned - they are the by product of the body breaking down MJ - they tend to stick in fat cells, and thus are detectable long after the effects of marijuana are over.

Whether or not someone is capable of driving X hours after ingestion of Y amount of EITHER Alcohol or Marijuana has much to do with how big Y is in the equation.



Andy

Here you attempt to define it differently, but THC is not water soluble and is held in the fat cells and thus shed much more slowly and the effect is cumulative. When in a Health Class the Teacher defined this as Fat soluble and that is why I used the term, it doesn't change the fact that it is accumulative in habitual users. Therefore while the THC is in the body one is effected negatively in motor skills, depth perception and judgement as evidenced by the study with the airline pilots mentioned before. Since the effect is cumulative, if habitually smoked, I made a suggestion as to the danger that they provide to other motor vehicles and thus external victims. Those that use the drug in amounts that will build up large levels of THC would be easy to screen and remove DLs. Which is clearly not a logic leap but an extension of the knowledge we gained in learning about the accumulative effect of THC on the user.

 

[CivilLiberty]

You must be smoking mexican ditch weed with stems and seeds because I can attest to the fact of some hybrid shit from the Northwest lasting for many hours.

Well, as shocking as this is, I do agree.

Wonder what the temperature is in hell right now - I'll bet it's getting chilly...


Like alcohol, the length of time that a user experiences the "high" is related to the amount of THC ingested. Obviously smoking alot of "chronic" the effects would be felt much longer than having only a small amount of a weaker variety.


Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

Yet they are still effected with pre-cancerous signs. Amazing.

That is a misnomer. Chronic inhalers were affected with NON cancerous legions. calling them "pre-cancerous" implies that they *will* become cancerous, and that is not the case.

That language is misleading because it implies something that has not been shown to be true.

Here you attempt to define it differently, but THC is not water soluble and is held in the fat cells and thus shed much more slowly and the effect is cumulative.

No, the THC is NOt stored is fat cells. The THC is rapidly metabolized. It is the METABOLITES that are stored in fat cells.


Andy

 

[insein]

The kids are MORE FUCKED by the current system. Since the "war on drugs" began, drug use has gone UP (not down) among 12-17 year olds.


Heroin use up 400%

Cocaine/crack use up 1200 %

Marijuana use up 1800%


Why?

Simple: DRUG DEALERS DON'T ASK FOR ID. Ask any kid what's easier to get - a bag of drugs or a bottle of booze, and they'll tell you the drugs are easier to get.


Andy

some links for this civi.

 

[insein]

Well, as shocking as this is, I do agree.

Wonder what the temperature is in hell right now - I'll bet it's getting chilly...


Like alcohol, the length of time that a user experiences the "high" is related to the amount of THC ingested. Obviously smoking alot of "chronic" the effects would be felt much longer than having only a small amount of a weaker variety.


Andy

The original article said that the chemicals the brain emits natural can last up to 35 minutes. Not MJ itself. Powerman misread that initially.

 

[no1tovote4]

That is a misnomer. Chronic inhalers were affected with NON cancerous legions. calling them "pre-cancerous" implies that they *will* become cancerous, and that is not the case.

That language is misleading because it implies something that has not been shown to be true.

They are the same legions that are shown to be the precurser to cancer in those who smoke, you once again attempt to dodge the actual meaning of the study. They even explain in the study why those that smoke less often get the same effect to their health, because it is drawn more directly it is hotter and because it is held longer there is more damage...

The study is actually a very good one, it explains itself rather well if you actually read it instead of attempting to deny the conclusion that it brings you to.

No, the THC is NOt stored is fat cells. The THC is rapidly metabolized. It is the METABOLITES that are stored in fat cells.


Andy

Except for the fact that when they test for THC they are able to find traces, usually enough to pop you on a test a month after the fact, this shows it is stored within the body and my health teacher was likely more accurate than you are likely to admit. And that STILL doesn't discount the fact that THC accumulates and still effects motor skills and judgement of distances, once again a logical fallacy attempting to misdirect the reader into a discussion that is not within the study...

However, since you simply will not believe the fact that THC is fat soluble I will present you with evidence...

http://www.neonjoint.com/passing_a_drug_test/producing_clean_urine.html

"THC is fat soluble, and it gets stored in your fat cells. Cleaning it out of your lipid tissue is very difficult. Many herbal products claim to clean out your system, yet they do nothing to remove THC byproducts from fat cells. A study was done in Germany in 1993 on 50 of the most common herbs used by people trying to pass the test. All 50 herbs failed to cause a negative. Unfortunately, this rumor will not die."

http://www.drugwatch.org/Cannabis Hemp THC.htm

"Since THC and the over 60 other cannabinoids are fat-soluble, i.e., store themselves in the fatty tissues of the brain and body, even a very small amount may be damaging, especially if ingested regularly. Fat-soluble substances accumulate in the body."

Anyway, I used different sources, one that is Pro-MJ, the second is clearly not. However the THC is stored in the fat cells of the brain and effects motor skills long after the "high" is gone. Since the effect is cumulative, it simply lasts longer if you smoke more often. As the substance accumulates it can effect the rate of speech, motor skills, depth perception, judgement, and causes apathy. To ignore the effect of a person with a higher apathy, that has impaired motor skills, depth perception, and judgement on their ability to operate motor vehicles is simply ignoring what you want to ignore because it doesn't fit with the facts you gleaned from a Libertarian site while ignoring the studies that flatly contradict what you stated earlier.

What you have been entirely incorrect about so far....

1. Cannabis causes cancer when smoked (you asserted that it did not and when shown studies that flatly contradict you use logical fallacies to attempt to distract from the study).
2. and is carcinogenic even when it isn't smoked as shown in the posted studies.(as above).
3. THC is fat soluble and is stored in the body and, if used more often, actually accumulates.(you have twice rejected that THC is fat soluble, but it is shown to be so on several sites.)
4. There is a danger in allowing those that are impaired by Cannabis use to drive, even after the effects of the "high" wear off as the impairment continues.(You attempt to ignore the danger that they may cause to others by rejecting the fact that the effect is accumulative and can endanger other's lives.

oh and 5. It appears that you have still not read the fact that I agree, the health risks to the user themselves is not enough to make it illegal and I believe it should be decriminalized. However I believe that those who smoke often enough for the accumulative danger should not be allowed to operate a motor vehicle legally.

 

[manu1959]

as a one time pot / hash user .... lets just say i was less than motivated to do much of anything ....further after one joint with my buddies we were not to capable of doing anything if we wanted to....one beer or one glass of wine or one cigarette does not have that effect.

a nation of slackers..........see jamacia

 

[insein]

as a one time pot / hash user .... lets just say i was less than motivated to do much of anything ....further after one joint with my buddies we were not to capable of doing anything if we wanted to....one beer or one glass of wine or one cigarette does not have that effect.

a nation of slackers..........see jamacia

The point is, marijuana use would not go up if it was legalized. It would simply make less people criminals.

 

[manu1959]

The point is, marijuana use would not go up if it was legalized. It would simply make less people criminals.

i say it would go up....for a time.....simply as a legal substance more would be inclined to try it....

all i can say is there is a big difference between a glass of wine with lunch and going back to work and blazing a j then trying to work

 

[insein]

i say it would go up....for a time.....simply as a legal substance more would be inclined to try it....

all i can say is there is a big difference between a glass of wine with lunch and going back to work and blazing a j then trying to work

true which is why most employers require you to be drug-free. That wouldnt change since its a free market and the employer decides who they can higher.

 

[CivilLiberty]

some links for this civi.

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/trends.htm

If you look through the reports you'll find the figures for use rates among the 12-17 year old age group, which alarmingly rise exponentially from the beginning of the modern "war on drugs" launched by Nixon in 1970


Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

The point is, marijuana use would not go up if it was legalized. It would simply make less people criminals.

Indeed - in Amsterdam where marijuana is LEGAL, they have half the percentage of users as the USA.

Andy

 

[archangel]

Indeed - in Amsterdam where marijuana is LEGAL, they have half the percentage of users as the USA.

Andy

They have approximately 1/6 the population of the US...and they also tried legalizing Heroin...was a disaster..they are also the Child Porn capital of the world... only followed by Indonesia...and frequently do sex change operations...
Amsterdam is the devils playground per se'...not a very good example to cite!

 

[CivilLiberty]

They are the same legions that are shown to be the precurser to cancer in those who smoke, you once again attempt to dodge the actual meaning of the study. They even explain in the study why those that smoke less often get the same effect to their health, because it is drawn more directly it is hotter and because it is held longer there is more damage...

The study is actually a very good one, it explains itself rather well if you actually read it instead of attempting to deny the conclusion that it brings you to.

And again, while they indicate the NON cancerous legions, they make NO LINK to ACTUAL CANCER.

What you have been entirely incorrect about so far....

1. Cannabis causes cancer when smoked (you asserted that it did not and when shown studies that flatly contradict you use logical fallacies to attempt to distract from the study).
2. and is carcinogenic even when it isn't smoked as shown in the posted studies.(as above).

Your studies indicate "non-cancerous legions", but you have yet to show an affirmative link to cancer.

3. THC is fat soluble and is stored in the body and, if used more often, actually accumulates.(you have twice rejected that THC is fat soluble, but it is shown to be so on several sites.)

I never said that THC was not fat soluble - only that it is primarily the NON PSYCHOACTIVE metabolites that are stored in fat cells. That THC is fat soluble is irrelevant when the majority of it is rapidly metabolized.

4. There is a danger in allowing those that are impaired by Cannabis use to drive, even after the effects of the "high" wear off as the impairment continues.(You attempt to ignore the danger that they may cause to others by rejecting the fact that the effect is accumulative and can endanger other's lives.

The effect is *not* cumulative, and a person is *no longer impared* after the effects wear off. What little THC may be locked into fat cells does not contribute to a "high".

oh and 5. It appears that you have still not read the fact that I agree, the health risks to the user themselves is not enough to make it illegal and I believe it should be decriminalized. However I believe that those who smoke often enough for the accumulative danger should not be allowed to operate a motor vehicle legally.

I agree with your agreeing. I agree that people - while high - should not drive. I disagree with your assumption that people are incapacitated even while not high.


Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

They have approximately 1/6 the population of the US...and they also tried legalizing Heroin...was a disaster..they are also the Child Porn capital of the world... only followed by Indonesia...and frequently do sex change operations...
Amsterdam is the devils playground per se'...not a very good example to cite!

I'm talking PER CAPITA figures - in other words, ADJUSTED FOR TEH DIFFERENT IN POPULATION. that is why I said *percentage* - that means percentage relative to their population size.


And yes, they legalized heroin for addicts. That program has been such an ASTOUNDING success that Switzerland also adopted a similar program, and Germany, Spain and other are also moving in that direction.

In Amsterdam, the legal heroin has ENDED the black market for heroin, and as a result their addict population STOPPED GROWING - and crime decreased, and the other problems of the black market - like the health problems of dirty needles and tainted supplies - also went away.



The issues of child porn are NOT related to this discussion.


Andy