Marijuana (Serious Business Style)

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

JaSK
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 7:42 am UTC

Marijuana (Serious Business Style)

Postby JaSK » Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:28 am UTC

Split from the previous marijuana topic for time relevance and quality purposes. This is Serious Business and the topic will be moderated accordingly. -Az

Look at Holland:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_marijuana_ ... etherlands
There is no street without a coffee shop, average prices are 5-6€ per gram (~8$ I think), but you hardly notice anything. The streets are clean, there are no gangs in the streets that terrorize you at night, only few people smoke in public and you NEVER SEE ANY POLICEMEN.

It's the most peaceful country I've ever visited and the weed is cheaper than anywhere else.

Also, you can grow it at home, which makes it even cheaper.

User avatar
SOSkanesumi ARK
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:15 am UTC
Location: C springs, colorado
Contact:

Re: Marijuana

Postby SOSkanesumi ARK » Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:41 am UTC

JaSK wrote:Look at Holland:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_marijuana_ ... etherlands
There is no street without a coffee shop, average prices are 5-6€ per gram (~8$ I think), but you hardly notice anything. The streets are clean, there are no gangs in the streets that terrorize you at night, only few people smoke in public and you NEVER SEE ANY POLICEMEN.

It's the most peaceful country I've ever visited and the weed is cheaper than anywhere else.

Also, you can grow it at home, which makes it even cheaper.

One of the reasons why i believe that in Holland it's not too big of a deal is because of the fact that it is legal(if not legal, then tolerated), whereas in the US of A it is illegal. Its like the whole prohibition era, if people want it, and you can make money off of it, and it's illegal, there will obviously be violence involved with it's sale, distribution, and use in areas where an individual cannot indulge themselves in it. One of the funnier points on this is that I think at one time California was thinking about total legalization of it, because they could tax their(actual) biggest cash crop and help their state get out of the debt that it's in.

*edited for those 2:41 am typos
You missed ... most of them. -Az
Navi> hey luke hows han these days?
<luke> han?
<Navi> solo
* luke facepalms

User avatar
el_loco_avs
Posts: 1294
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:14 pm UTC

Re: Marijuana

Postby el_loco_avs » Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:03 am UTC

In the Netherlands: Weed consumption is tolerated. Sale is tolerated under certain circumstances. Production is not.

Production is now in the hands of hardcore organized crime. An article in a local newspaper today mentioned most murders and drug-stuations are related to pot. (dutch: http://www.tctubantia.nl/regio/twente/4 ... rloren.ece )
While on the consumer end things are okidoki, the current system is kinda fucked. Our potsmokers are apparantly funding our organized crime :roll:

I'd like to see a fully legalized system here. But due to the EU that's very unlikely to happen. :(
You go your way.
I'll go your way too.

philly13
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:22 am UTC

Re: Marijuana

Postby philly13 » Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:09 am UTC

There's been progress towards legalization here. Massachusetts recently decriminalized it to where if you have <1oz on you, they just confiscate it and hit you with a $100 fine. In a couple cities, the cops just think it's a hassle (source) and won't even ticket for it. I know there's a decriminalization bill going through CT right now, and there's a bill going through Mass. to completely legalize it for commercial sale and production. I wouldn't be surprised if it were to become legal in the next 10 years or so, the public mindset (at least that I've experienced) seems to be becoming more tolerable of the ganja.

User avatar
DarkKnightJared
Posts: 268
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:10 am UTC
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Marijuana

Postby DarkKnightJared » Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:55 am UTC

el_loco_avs wrote:^ In the Netherlands: Weed consumption is tolerated. Sale is tolerated under certain circumstances. Production is not.

Production is now in the hands of hardcore organized crime. An article in a local newspaper today mentioned most murders and drug-stuations are related to pot. (dutch: http://www.tctubantia.nl/regio/twente/4 ... rloren.ece )
While on the consumer end things are okidoki, the current system is kinda fucked. Our potsmokers are apparantly funding our organized crime :roll:

I'd like to see a fully legalized system here. But due to the EU that's very unlikely to happen. :(


The State's probably have it worse--ours is coming from a full-fledge border war. :roll:

And no one, from what I've seen so far, has even hinted that legalizing pot would at least cut down one of the main reasons of the dispute--we just talk about making tougher border fences. :(

User avatar
Enuja
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:40 pm UTC
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: Marijuana

Postby Enuja » Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:59 pm UTC

People in politics and diplomacy have talked about legalizing or decriminalizing pot in the US as a way to cut down on the violence in Mexico.

All Things Considered had a fascinating imaginary news story about the US after legalization of marijuana, and it did include some discussion of the expected effect of legalization on Mexican drug cartels.

*GC*
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:27 am UTC

Re: Marijuana

Postby *GC* » Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:54 am UTC

I showed up to this party a bit late, and I will be up front and admit I only skimmed that thread that never existed after reading the first two pages.

I will say I am pretty disappointed in previous discussions. I am biased on this topic without a doubt, there is no scientific, moral, or ethical reason for marijuana to be illegal. No one not one person has ever died as a direct result of using marijuana, or at least no one has ever been able to find a record of it, that I have ever seen. It is also not addictive, seasoned hardcore smokers regularly take voluntary "tolerance breaks" for weeks at a time, I'd like to see coffee drinkers do that, I gave up caffeine a few years ago so I know how hard that can be, I'm back though.

I am actively looking for someone who is anti-legalization to give me logical thought out legitimate reasons why they feel that way, reasons based on fact, I haven't found someone who could yet.
Reasons I do hear (real quotes):
"Meh, you can still go smoke that shit in Canada... legal or not. I don't want it legal here."
"I don't like dirty hippie pot heads. Therefore I will vote no forever on this. " ("this" being hypothetical legalization)

That seems to be the best the other side can come up with.

Lucky for everyone here, my work day is now over so you will be spared further ramblings, at least for now.

I will leave you with this, a much watch documentary for anybody at all interested in this topic. Pro-legalization bias but very well done. (Sorry for no link, I'll edit it later, having a no-script issue)
http://blip.tv/file/1356143/

Edit: Sorry, looks like my video link has been deleted but invisibl posted a link to the same video in the next post.

invisibl
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:25 am UTC

Re: Marijuana

Postby invisibl » Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:03 am UTC

Check this link. 105 minutes
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 5975839596
Awoke a few good memories and stimulated much thought.
Obvious bias inside of it like any doco,But seeing beyond that there are still some good nuggets(scusethepun)_
Aside from the mechanics of ingesting pot traditionally (smoking) there are some interesting finds like the below link.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 29_pf.html

General_Norris
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

Re: Marijuana

Postby General_Norris » Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:04 am UTC

Marijuana has cancerigen substances so it kills people. Also yes, it's addictive, not as much as tobbaco or alcohol but it is. (Note that I'm supposing that you don't smoke it but vaporize it instead since smoking is a good way to destroy your lungs)

As long as suicide is a crime you can't legalize Marijuana. So what it's left is the debate wheter an individual should be able to keep his liberty even when this will make him unhappy. People don't realize that they will lose a lot of their life for nothing. They do not realise that smoking is going to cut 20 years of their life. They may know it but they don't understand it. It's like the idiots in my class. They laughed at those who studied and now they work as dustmen. And I bet you they are not happy about that.

If you allow an individual to hurt himself you cannot force education since they should be free to choose.

People is stupid and sometimes they must be forced for their own good (Sometimes). For example a guy that feels so bad when his GF walks away and ends their relationship will want to suicide but in the end he is just confused, what he wants is her not suicide. An human being is not able to want suicide because as animals we pursue happines/survivance and if we want to die is not because we want to die but because we think dying is better than whatever we have now, even if it doesn't make sense.

Sorry I have to go so my explanation is pretty bad. Hope you get the general idea and doesn't misunderstand anything (AND I SAID SOMETIMES)

*GC*
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:27 am UTC

Re: Marijuana

Postby *GC* » Fri Apr 24, 2009 5:19 pm UTC

General_Norris wrote:Marijuana has cancerigen substances so it kills people. Also yes, it's addictive, not as much as tobbaco or alcohol but it is. (Note that I'm supposing that you don't smoke it but vaporize it instead since smoking is a good way to destroy your lungs)

As long as suicide is a crime you can't legalize Marijuana. So what it's left is the debate wheter an individual should be able to keep his liberty even when this will make him unhappy. People don't realize that they will lose a lot of their life for nothing. They do not realise that smoking is going to cut 20 years of their life. They may know it but they don't understand it. It's like the idiots in my class. They laughed at those who studied and now they work as dustmen. And I bet you they are not happy about that.



“We know that there are as many or more carcinogens and co-carcinogens in marijuana smoke as in cigarettes,” researcher Donald Tashkin, MD, of UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine tells WebMD. “But we did not find any evidence for an increase in cancer risk for even heavy marijuana smoking.”

The heaviest marijuana users in the study had smoked more than 22,000 joints, while moderately heavy smokers had smoked between 11,000 and 22,000 joints.

While two-pack-a-day or more cigarette smokers were found to have a 20-fold increase in lung cancer risk, no elevation in risk was seen for even the very heaviest marijuana smokers.


Studies suggest that marijuana smoke contains 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to lung cancer than cigarette smoke. Marijuana smokers also tend to inhale deeper than cigarette smokers and hold the inhaled smoke in their lungs longer.

So why isn’t smoking marijuana as dangerous as smoking cigarettes in terms of cancer risk?

The answer isn’t clear, but the experts say it might have something to do with tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, which is a chemical found in marijuana smoke.

Cellular studies and even some studies in animal models suggest that THC has antitumor properties, either by encouraging the death of genetically damaged cells that can become cancerous or by restricting the development of the blood supply that feeds tumors, Tashkin tells WebMD.

In a review of the research published last fall, University of Colorado molecular biologist Robert Melamede, PhD, concluded that the THC in cannabis seems to lessen the tumor-promoting properties of marijuana smoke.

The nicotine in tobacco has been shown to inhibit the destruction of cancer-causing cells, Melamede tells WebMD. THC does not appear to do this and may even do the opposite.


Btw, that is from an article on Fox News, they can be accused of being bias on almost everything, but their bias on marijuana is in no way shape or form "pro". http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html

As for if suicide is a crime marijuana can't be legalized...Well I'm just baffled by that, not in a "whoa you just blew my mind" way either. We better make anything that isn't classified as a "health food" illegal, time to get rid of cigarettes, alcohol, and soda. As a matter of fact bikes, skateboards, rollerblades, cars, anything that can be used for transportation need to be outlawed to because people rely on them too much instead of walking and are getting fat, which is shortening their lifespan.

Addiction: it's no more addicting than anything else you enjoy doing, it is not chemically addictive, if you go without it your body doesn't freak out because it's not getting it. You say "damn I wish I was high" then go about your day.
Marijuana has cancerigen substances so it kills people. Also yes, it's addictive, not as much as tobbaco or alcohol but it is.

If you are going to state your personal opinion I would at least ask that you back it up with facts.

Here is an example of how to do that, I'll even use Fox News again, as I find it to be a good source on this topic because they sure aren't going to go out of their way to give marijuana any undo positive publicity.

Marijuana has cancerigen substances so it kills people.

Funny thing about that, because you see, recent research in the past few years is showing that marijuana actually slows the growth of cancer.

Certain marijuana components may suppress the tumors of highly invasive cancers, a new study finds.

In laboratory tests, cannabinoids, the active components in marijuana, were found to slow the spread of lung and cervical cancer tumors, according to researchers Robert Ramer and Burkhard Hinz of the University of Rostock in Germany.

Proponents of medical marijuana believe that cannabinoids reduce the side effects of cancer treatment, such as pain, weight loss and vomiting.

The study, published in the Jan. 2 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, finds that the compounds may also have an anticancer effect; however, more research is needed to determine whether the laboratory results will hold true in humans, the authors wrote.

In addition to suppressing tumor cell invasion, cannabinoids also stimulated the expression of TIMP-1, an inhibitor of a group of enzymes involved in tumor cell invasion.

"To our knowledge, this is the first report of TIMP-1-dependent anti-invasive effects of cannabinoids," the authors wrote. "This signaling pathway may play an important role in the antimetastatic action of cannabinoids, whose potential therapeutic benefit in the treatment of highly invasive cancers should be addressed in clinical trials."


This has been retested at various institutes since this finding and continues to be retested, so far all have showed similar results.

I would ask that you go back and edit your post as to not continue spreading untrue rumors.

*GC*
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:27 am UTC

Re: Marijuana

Postby *GC* » Fri Apr 24, 2009 5:56 pm UTC

Now that I addressed that, there are a few more issues I'd like to take the time to address.

I have heard a lot of talk about kids and teenagers here. I do not support legal use by anyone under 18, sure teenagers will use it, sure there will still be a "black market" because of that, but I see it being similar to how underage people get alcohol not waiting for their dealer to get to a shipment from their dealer from the bigger dealer from Mexico. You can't stop teenagers from trying it, but I don't think you want to give the impression of condoning them using it.

Pricing: Currently from stats I have read, marijuana is priced at a 600% markup. If made legal the price would have to come down to put the black market out of business, if the huge profits aren't there the risk isn't worth it. Put a 100% tax (50% fed 50% state) on it, even with a huge tax like that businesses can sell it for good profits at lower prices.

How to sell it: I'm against the idea of selling it as gas stations and the like. I believe it should be sold at dedicated stores, much like liquor stores, even liquor and marijuana together is fine with me, I think you should have to be 18 to even enter the store let alone make a purchase. Basically, set it up very much like liquor licenses, with stiff penalties for anyone who violates the law.

Personal position and homegrown: 1 oz limit for possession in public, so you can only buy up to an ounce at a time. In home possession of up to 10 oz of dried, cured, smokable bud. As well as up to 10 "mature" (flowering) plants at a time. No limit for immature (vegetative) plants or immature clones of plants. Those limits of course to be able to separate personal use from intent to sell. I would even be open to paying for the privilege to grow your own as long as they kept the yearly licenses under $100.

philly13
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:22 am UTC

Re: Marijuana

Postby philly13 » Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

I feel like, if marijuana became legalized under an 18+ or 21+ restriction, it would become a lot harder for kids to get it than it is now. I'm only 19, and personally, I find it much, much easier to find marijuana than someone who will buy me alcohol. This was especially true back in high school, since kids didn't really know anyone who was 21 so they'd have to find older siblings or pay off homeless people. Marijuana, on the other hand, is sold by numerous people everywhere you go, and people will sell to anyone. I feel like that's one of the main reasons people being to use marijuana in the first place - it's easier to get high than drunk since marijuana's illegal.

*GC*
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:27 am UTC

Re: Marijuana

Postby *GC* » Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:52 pm UTC

Exactly right Philly, when you make something illegal you give up control of it. You can draw parallels off the popular gun argument "If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns." The people that sell the marijuana now are criminals, some more so than others it could be argued, but why would someone breaking the law care about selling to kids?

If it's legal then the government can control who is able to sell it and who they are able to sell it to.

Truth be told even though I would like to see be 18+, I would hope that it would provide easier access to teenagers (15-17), like I said I support 18+ because you don't want to appear to condone use by young people, but lets be honest teenagers do some stupid things in the name of getting high, huffing chemicals, abusing cough medicine, ect. Some of the most dangerous ways to get high, but very easy. DXM abuse is a growing problem in this country right now, which would almost surely go down if marijuana laws and views weren't so tough.

General_Norris
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

Re: Marijuana

Postby General_Norris » Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:36 pm UTC

@GC

You skipped my second post where I , after being unable to search some studies I looked some months ago, admit that I do not know if vaporized marihuana is bad for health or not because of lack of evidence. I think you should check it out first.

On other matters, Wikipedia, while not being the best source on the world, has a comparasion of Physical harm and Dependance on various drugs and it has 1.5 on a scale of 3. This means it's addictive, not that you just fancy being high as you may fancy going out with your friends or eating salad as you say on your post here:

Addiction: it's no more addicting than anything else you enjoy doing, it is not chemically addictive, if you go without it your body doesn't freak out because it's not getting it. You say "damn I wish I was high" then go about your day.


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana#Health_issues

I think you also misunderstood my point on suicide. If a substance is harmful and we consider suicide a crime we cannot allow that substance. Thus first you must debate if it's good to allow an individual to hurt himself because if not you are going against his will. As I explain in my second post, if it is not bad for health then it's fine since it's consumption does no harm. If it is it should be banned.

I also compare allowing health-damaging substances to allowing kids to skip school.

Your comparison about banning cars and skateboards because people will walk less is hardly a good comparison as I'm talking about harmful substances not "everything that is not healthy"

Also I think editing my post so as to prevent "untrue rumors" is a poor way of debating. If something was right or wrong it should be there so you can see what's right or wrong with it.

In regards to your last post I would like to ask why do you think getting high is not suitable for teenagers because your reasoning is more on "I support 18+ because teenagers do stupid things in order to get high like abusing cough medicine". However this doesn't hold up when the psicoactive effects of the substance are not danegrous as you say.

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Marijuana

Postby TheAmazingRando » Fri Apr 24, 2009 8:39 pm UTC

General_Norris wrote:I think you also misunderstood my point on suicide. If a substance is harmful and we consider suicide a crime we cannot allow that substance. Thus first you must debate if it's good to allow an individual to hurt himself because if not you are going against his will. As I explain in my second post, if it is not bad for health then it's fine since it's consumption does no harm. If it is it should be banned.
What are your thoughts on sports which have a risk of harm or death? I enjoy rock climbing tremendously. There is always a chance that I will kill myself by doing it. How about surfing? skateboarding? caving? skydiving? These are all potentially dangerous activities, and they kill more people than marijuana (meaning, they actually kill people).

If you're using "suicide is illegal" as a reason to ban marijuana, it's unreasonable to stop only at substances which have no shown connection with causing death (or even something like cigarettes, which do cause cancer), and ignore risky activities that do cause death. By allowing people to skydive, we're letting them say "I realize this may kill me, but I want to do it anyway, because it is fun." How is this any different than allowing someone to smoke a cigarette and say "I realize this may kill me, but I want to do it anyway, because it is fun?" In the case of marijuana, they're saying "I realize there is no scientific evidence that this will kill me or harm my body, but I want to do it anyway, because it is fun."

Do you have any sources that show that marijuana kills people? Because as far as I'm aware, there's never been a reported case of death from marijuana, and every study that has been done has concluded that there is no scientific evidence that links adult marijuana use with cancer or brain damage.

Also. Psychoactive. Carcinogen. Please take the time to spell correctly.

EDIT: Other things besides tobacco and marijuana that contain carcinogens: barbecued foods, fried foods, sunlight, gasoline.
SECOND EDIT: It also may be eye-opening to read up on the history of marijuana prohibition, which has very little to do with the health effects of the drug and a lot to do with racism and downright lies.

General_Norris
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

Re: Marijuana

Postby General_Norris » Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:16 pm UTC

@TheAmazingRondo

First of all the statement you quote does not mention marijuana or any other substance nor is an argument pro or against any given substance.

...going against his will. As I explain in my second post, if it is not bad for health then it's fine since it's consumption does no harm...


Nowhere in that quote I mention I think Marijuana is bad for health. I'm not against it's use if it's not a harmful substance.

Also I'm not saying we should stop at substances and not include risky activities. World run-through-minefield tournaments should be banned too. I don't think the sports you mentioned are as dangerous as smoking cigarettes. Without citing any evidence I will say proportionally more people die because of lung cancer caused by tobacco than because they surf.

I would like to point that I'm using "suicide as a crime" not because I imply that what is morally right is just following rules but to remark that nowadays suicide is considered a crime in most developed countries and that it's hard to prove morally that suicide is legitimate or desirable.(Do not use examples as "But what if I kill myself to salve 40 other guys?", please, I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about "I feel bad so I will kill myself")

BTW, I alredy know that there are no reported Marijuana deaths. There have been a few related deaths but the subjects did not die because of Marijuana but other drugs or illnesses

Also. Psychoactive. Carcinogen. Please take the time to spell correctly.
[/quote]

Sorry, English is not my main language and it's getting tained because of other languages I'm studying. :oops: Guess "cancerigen" sounds really awful compared to "carcinogen".

Also so much time not speaking it has caused me to explain pretty badly, sorry about that.

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Marijuana

Postby TheAmazingRando » Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:25 pm UTC

I know my quoted section didn't specifically mention marijuana, I just wanted to see what you thought about other potentially deadly activities. If you think some, not all, risky things should be banned, then it's a matter of degree. I think you'll find that more people die from sport accidents than from smoking marijuana cigarettes.

Anyway, you said:
BTW, I alredy know that there are no reported Marijuana deaths. There have been a few related deaths but the subjects did not die because of Marijuana but other drugs or illnesses
Yet you also say:
Marijuana has cancerigen substances so it kills people.

It can't go both ways. If the studies show that even excessive smoking of marijuana joints (which is, by all accounts, more harmful than vaporized or ingested marijuana since it also involves burning plant matter) has no link to cancer, and if there are no reports of anyone being killed by smoking marijuana, it is incorrect to say that marijuana kills people because it contains carcinogens.

Also, sorry, I didn't realize English is not your first language. Most browsers (firefox especially) have spell check plugins which may make it a bit easier to avoid spelling mistakes on more difficult/uncommon words.

Also, on the suicide angle, I think there's a difference between making the decision to end one's life, based on a documented mental condition, and making the decision to engage in an activity that might end one's life. I wouldn't have a problem with suicide being legal if the subject were to first undergo a test to prove that s/he was, in fact, acting under sound mind.

*GC*
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:27 am UTC

Re: Marijuana

Postby *GC* » Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:41 pm UTC

General_Norris wrote:@GC

You skipped my second post where I , after being unable to search some studies I looked some months ago, admit that I do not know if vaporized marihuana is bad for health or not because of lack of evidence. I think you should check it out first.

On other matters, Wikipedia, while not being the best source on the world, has a comparasion of Physical harm and Dependance on various drugs and it has 1.5 on a scale of 3. This means it's addictive, not that you just fancy being high as you may fancy going out with your friends or eating salad as you say on your post here:

Addiction: it's no more addicting than anything else you enjoy doing, it is not chemically addictive, if you go without it your body doesn't freak out because it's not getting it. You say "damn I wish I was high" then go about your day.


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana#Health_issues

I think you also misunderstood my point on suicide. If a substance is harmful and we consider suicide a crime we cannot allow that substance. Thus first you must debate if it's good to allow an individual to hurt himself because if not you are going against his will. As I explain in my second post, if it is not bad for health then it's fine since it's consumption does no harm. If it is it should be banned.

I also compare allowing health-damaging substances to allowing kids to skip school.

Your comparison about banning cars and skateboards because people will walk less is hardly a good comparison as I'm talking about harmful substances not "everything that is not healthy"

Also I think editing my post so as to prevent "untrue rumors" is a poor way of debating. If something was right or wrong it should be there so you can see what's right or wrong with it.

In regards to your last post I would like to ask why do you think getting high is not suitable for teenagers because your reasoning is more on "I support 18+ because teenagers do stupid things in order to get high like abusing cough medicine". However this doesn't hold up when the psicoactive effects of the substance are not danegrous as you say.


I did skip your second post, but reading didn't change anything, except to clarify your views better. I was never referring to vaporizing, because normal smoking isn't that bad for you, sure it's not good for you, breathing in any smoke from anything is not good for you. But it doesn't cause cancer if it smoked, vaporized or ate, or to be far, no one has ever been able to show that it does, in fact scientists have tried over and over and failed over and over. I don't know if you have seen any interviews with some of these scientists who have tested marijuana (a bunch on youtube), but almost all of them go into the tests thinking they are going to prove that marijuana is bad and by the end are shocked that the finding. It honestly makes no sense, it's smoke, it contains carcinogens, it should be horrible, it should cause cancer, but it simply doesn't, and in a wonderfully bizarre twist of fate it seems to slow the spread of cancer.

The wiki chart: I have seen that chart many times and I don't like it at all, it does little to explain the findings except "cocaine is a half inch less addictive than heroin". The problem with arguing addiction is defining addiction. Recently I had to stop smoking after months of daily use, now I wasn't a heavy user, a gram would last me about a week. But when I had to quit I have no issue and of people I know who were/are heavy users they had no issue. In the 3 months I couldn't smoke, I wanted to, I wished I was able to, but not because I needed it, not even the first night clean. And I get addicted to things very easily, my family has a history alcoholism on both sides. I have been addicted to alcohol in the past, where if I didn't have at least 1 drink I would feel terrible, after a surgery I was hooked on vicodin as well. I don't consider myself to be an addict, I had it under control and knew I had to push though it before I did become completely addicted. In fact when I started smoking marijuana it was to replace vicodin. I have this odd pain, sensation, something from my surgery that I just can not explain, and marijuana helps. I live in Michigan which is a medical marijuana state now, but this doesn't qualify, neither does my anxiety or depression that it also helps.

Suicide: I get your point, I don't agree but I get it. As for cars and such, it is just as valid as your point as it is an continuation of your point. Let's even say that traditional methods of smoking marijuana cause cancer just like cigarettes, there are other ways of using marijuana, be it vaporizing, eatting, taking it pills of thc, oral sprays, ect. There are plenty of ways to use it other than smoking. I'll use another car example since I know you like them, it would be like banning cars because talking on your cell while driving is dangerous, you don't HAVE to used your phone while driving, just like you dont HAVE to set the plant material on fire and inhale it, there are safer options.

Teenagers: My reasoning is, really I don't care, I just know there is no way in hell it would ever pass if there isn't an age restriction on it. They are going to use it no matter what, they already have extremely easy access to it, which i doubt would get easier if it were legal. I guess back against the wall is it's a health care issue which parents control until the child is 18. Which reminds me I should make a distinction between recreational use and medical use for minors, there should be no age restriction for medical use at all.

Ok, I think I covered everything.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Marijuana

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:54 pm UTC

General_Norris wrote:As long as suicide is a crime you can't legalize Marijuana.

Time to break out the bongs?

*GC*
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:27 am UTC

Re: Marijuana

Postby *GC* » Sat Apr 25, 2009 4:56 pm UTC

My question is how can it federally be classified as a Schedule I drug, high potential for abuse and has no acceptable medical use, when there clearly are MANY acceptable medical uses. The federal government even has a program where they supply marijuana for medicinal use, I believe it's only to 4 people though (facts might not be 100% correct on that.)

gforce12192
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:15 pm UTC

Re: Marijuana

Postby gforce12192 » Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:22 pm UTC

In health class, we were forced to watch a movie that said THC bonded to brain tissue, I get the feeling its complete bullcrap, but I wonder if its possible? I know that THC bonds to lipids and the brain is mostly made of lipids. If this is true, than maybe there are some effects that exceed the intoxicating and carcinogenic effects of alcohol and tobacco. Again, I doubt it, but there is enough truth in it so that it might be true. Could anyone shed any light on this?

User avatar
Alpha Omicron
Posts: 2765
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 1:07 pm UTC

Re: Marijuana

Postby Alpha Omicron » Sat Apr 25, 2009 7:00 pm UTC

gforce12192 wrote:Could anyone shed any light on this?
THC binds to cannabinoid receptor sites in the brain. This is normal behaivour for a mood-altering chemical.
Here is a link to a page which leverages aggregation of my tweetbook social blogomedia.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Marijuana

Postby Azrael » Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:28 pm UTC

Alright ladies and gentlemen, we're going to try something revolutionary: We're going to discuss marijuana in a calm, rational and supported manner. And above all else, we're going to cite things that we assert as facts. That part is rather important.

I don't think this has ever happened regarding this particular topic before, but we're going to give it a shot anyway because some of the responses in this thread are worthy of a continued, educated discussion.

Anyhow, a lot of junk has been removed, including the entire previous thread.

User avatar
SOSkanesumi ARK
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:15 am UTC
Location: C springs, colorado
Contact:

Re: Marijuana

Postby SOSkanesumi ARK » Tue Apr 28, 2009 5:35 am UTC

One of the worst things about laws against cannabis is that there are a multitude of inmates within the United State's Prison system [1] (many In C Springs [2], CO at one point our correctional facilities were so overact that the inmates had to sleep in shanty tent towns on the prison facilities recreational areas [3]. The main reason of why they were incarcerated? Sale, distribution, possession, and use of marijuana [4]) and this is an outrage. Cannabis does little to destroy the user's body, as much, if not less, than tobacco products does [5]. I am irate because of a lack of fair laws to a perfectly safe drug [6] that in may cases is used medicinally for actual patents where the only relief they can receive is from the use of marijuana [7]. Alas, its not about what the good and bad uses of marijuana, I believe the real reason why it is illegal in the United Sates is that the United State's government wants you to get high off of drugs they invested in, not ones that they cannot tax (as of yet. Although, if the United State's government did legalize it, they could tax it and we could probably get out of this economic slump faster than any other measure Congress has attempted.)

Well, rant over.

That's seven citations you'd need to have this be an SB worthy response. Never mind the 15 spelling mistakes, including *every* time you used the word marijuana.

-Az
Navi> hey luke hows han these days?
<luke> han?
<Navi> solo
* luke facepalms

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Marijuana

Postby Vaniver » Wed Apr 29, 2009 12:33 am UTC

Um, you guys know most drugs are fully legal in Portugal, right?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Prospekt
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:12 am UTC

Re: Marijuana

Postby Prospekt » Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:48 am UTC

I've sort of taken the stance that what somebody does/puts into to their body is their own business. However, The bottom line is that smoking anything is harmful to your health. According to my AP bio class, smoke (from cigarettes and presumably smoked marijuana) kills the cillia that line your trachea. These cillia clear phlegm and other debris from your lungs, not having them is a bad thing.
Also according to my bio class, THC and other mood altering chemicals are similar enough to neurotransmitters that occur naturally in humans that they can bind to receptor sites in the synaptic cleft, but over time the receptors adjust to the slightly different shape of the foreign chemical. The result is that neurotransmitters naturally found in the body are less effective.

Also, I did happen to stumble upon a study that linked Marijuana to testicular cancer. Might be of interest.

There's also the idea that marijuana is a gateway drug. One friend of mine used to use pot and eventually experimented with all kinds of dangerous drugs. When asked what specifically they responded "all kinds of crazy shit; shrooms, meth, coke... I don't really remember some of it". Eventually they managed to kick those habits, but not without suffering permanent effects (altered physical appearance, for example). Another friend is an unabashed pothead, a 'lifestyle choice' they picked up from their father. The father is now deceased because of his experimentation with other, more dangerous drugs. While it wasn't marijuana itself that was the problem, it seems like it leads to problems...

Of course, this is all anecdotal; I don't know how common this is, or how likely if the drug were legalized. However, it makes sense to me that one would seek out a longer or more intense experience after using what I understand to be an entry-level drug.

I guess when it comes down to it, I'm for the legalization of marijuana, but I hope people I'm close to choose not to use it. The regulated sale (and taxation) of the drug would be good for the economy and reduce crime. However, the use of it carries unnecessary risks, just like smoking tobacco or drinking excessive alcohol. We've just got to be careful.

*GC*
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:27 am UTC

Re: Marijuana

Postby *GC* » Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:47 pm UTC

Prospekt wrote:There's also the idea that marijuana is a gateway drug. One friend of mine used to use pot and eventually experimented with all kinds of dangerous drugs. When asked what specifically they responded "all kinds of crazy shit; shrooms, meth, coke... I don't really remember some of it". Eventually they managed to kick those habits, but not without suffering permanent effects (altered physical appearance, for example). Another friend is an unabashed pothead, a 'lifestyle choice' they picked up from their father. The father is now deceased because of his experimentation with other, more dangerous drugs. While it wasn't marijuana itself that was the problem, it seems like it leads to problems...


There are different schools of thought on the gateway theory. I'm one who says the gateway theory is more a product prohibition. Many people who enjoy marijuana are forced to step into this "other world" to get it. This "other world" is a world where hard drugs are just as easily available and not viewed as harshly as the normal world. Legalized marijuana would put an end to "I'm out of weed, but I have heroin." situations. It's not as hard to make that jump when it's right in front of you and all the anti-drug propaganda you have had aimed at you for your entire life makes little to no distinction between marijuana and hard drugs.

I also don't like the gateway theory because if marijuana is illegal because it makes you look for other, more dangerous ways to alter your mood then why isn't alcohol illegal? I would venture to guess most people try alcohol before marijuana. Why isn't caffeine illegal? Caffeine is nearly everyone's first drug, it alters their mood and hooks them. I know before I had access to alcohol and before I ever smoked marijuana I was a caffeine junkie, from time to time I would drink energy drink after energy drink to achieve that "wired" feeling.

The gateway theory seems to come back to a common problem with how we view things in the US. We can't just accept things to be true because they are true, we need to find a scapegoat to blame it on. People want to experience mood altering drugs, well that must be marijuana's fault. Kids are getting dumber, must be TV's fault, not the school systems who are lowering standards in over filled classrooms and teaching kids only what may appear on standardized tests, not the parents who are never there, having their children raised by proxy, nope it has to be television because some show just made a fart joke. School violence, clearly the violent video games and music, it can't just be that a small percentage of people (any age) are just crazy unstable and prone to violence, because that would mean you missed the signs that would have allowed you to prevent a tragedy. Correlation does not imply causation, if this country would start embracing that we could see great progress made, instead of spending our time on nonsensical arguments, not only on marijuana reform but on everything.

User avatar
Alpha Omicron
Posts: 2765
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 1:07 pm UTC

Re: Marijuana (Serious Business Style)

Postby Alpha Omicron » Wed Apr 29, 2009 5:44 pm UTC

Why the Gateway argument makes no sense:
Gateway argument: Most people who do very dangerous drugs, like heroin, did marijuana first. Therefore, smoking marijuana leads to hard drug use.
The actual case: While it is true that most people who do heroin did marijuana first, most people who smoke marijuana will never go on to use harder drugs, therefore marijuana does not lead hard drug use, or is at most a minor factor.

The Gateway argument is based on not understanding Venn diagrams.
Here is a link to a page which leverages aggregation of my tweetbook social blogomedia.

*GC*
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:27 am UTC

Re: Marijuana (Serious Business Style)

Postby *GC* » Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:03 pm UTC

N&A is thatta way -->

Meaning that you need to actually *say* something here, rather than just post article excerpts.

-Az

Prospekt
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:12 am UTC

Re: Marijuana

Postby Prospekt » Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:16 am UTC

*GC* wrote:...Correlation does not imply causation...

Alpha Omicron wrote:The Gateway argument is based on not understanding Venn diagrams.

Excellent points, and like I said those are just two examples from my very limited experience. As long as it is used responsibly, I don't see a problem with legalization. There just need to be education programs and restrictions on it just like anything else. Making it illegal clearly doesn't stop people from abusing it.

as a side note, my mom is completely addicted to caffeine, she needs two or three cups of coffee just to get through the day... It's awful. When we were on a vacation to Hawaii, we once spent the better part of a day trying to find a decent coffee shop that was open. I've kinda made a point of taking as little caffeine as I can. I don't like the stuff. 'course now I'm just sounding prudish...

General_Norris
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

Re: Marijuana (Serious Business Style)

Postby General_Norris » Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:24 pm UTC

So let me get this straight, please correct me if I'm wrong:

1) Marijuana has more potentially cancerigen substances than tobaco like amonnia and nitrogen oxides.
2) However there is not the expected lung cancer
3) THC has been speculated, but not proven yet, to have anticancirogen properties.
4) Thus if THC has those properties this would explain why no cancer has been produced (Given that 3 is right, something we don't know yet)

Am I mistaken or can I assume this?
Last edited by General_Norris on Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:06 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Alpha Omicron
Posts: 2765
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 1:07 pm UTC

Re: Marijuana (Serious Business Style)

Postby Alpha Omicron » Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:46 pm UTC

General_Norris wrote:Am I mistaken or can I assume this?
Given that 3. is not yet well-established, the jump to 4. is just speculation. But 1. and 2. are facts, yes.
Here is a link to a page which leverages aggregation of my tweetbook social blogomedia.

General_Norris
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

Re: Marijuana (Serious Business Style)

Postby General_Norris » Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:05 pm UTC

Alpha Omicron wrote:
General_Norris wrote:Am I mistaken or can I assume this?
Given that 3. is not yet well-established, the jump to 4. is just speculation. But 1. and 2. are facts, yes.


My mistake I wrote "is" instead of "if", I will edit my post so as to make more clear that point 4 is speculation based on a posible result of 3

User avatar
Alpha Omicron
Posts: 2765
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 1:07 pm UTC

Re: Marijuana (Serious Business Style)

Postby Alpha Omicron » Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:37 pm UTC

General_Norris wrote:My mistake I wrote "is" instead of "if", I will edit my post so as to make more clear that point 4 is speculation based on a possible result of 3
Even then, 4. is not automatically true by virtue of 3. being true. It's something that would also require research.
Here is a link to a page which leverages aggregation of my tweetbook social blogomedia.

User avatar
SOSkanesumi ARK
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:15 am UTC
Location: C springs, colorado
Contact:

Re: Marijuana (Serious Business Style)

Postby SOSkanesumi ARK » Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:37 pm UTC

Misinformed, un-cited and nigh illegible post removed. Posts of this quality will continue to be removed from this or any other SB thread. Coupled with the two posts of yours I've already removed and the purple-blitz in the remaining one above, you're awfully close to being ejected from the thread.

Please read the SB rules at your earliest convenience.

-Az

Navi> hey luke hows han these days?
<luke> han?
<Navi> solo
* luke facepalms

bsberman
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:17 am UTC

Re: Marijuana (Serious Business Style)

Postby bsberman » Fri May 01, 2009 1:40 am UTC

General_Norris wrote:So let me get this straight, please correct me if I'm wrong:

1) Marijuana has more potentially cancerigen substances than tobaco like amonnia and nitrogen oxides.
2) However there is not the expected lung cancer
3) THC has been speculated, but not proven yet, to have anticancirogen properties.
4) Thus if THC has those properties this would explain why no cancer has been produced (Given that 3 is right, something we don't know yet)

Am I mistaken or can I assume this?


Here's a good scientific work that answers your question and many others:

Cannabis, the mind and society: the hash realities
Robin M. Murray et al., Nature Reviews Neuroscience 8, 885-895 (November 2007)

http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v8/n1 ... n2253.html
doi:10.1038/nrn2253

All those questions have been investigated along with hundreds of others. There are over a hundred respected references in that review. The greatest health risk seems to be various long term mental and psychological conditions, especially for those who begin using the substance before 25. THC generally has bad indications; but cannabidiol, for example, is a different substance found in the plant that has good indications. The plant, like most living systems, is quite complex; this source is good, since it is a clearly written, objective, and scientific dissemination of cannabis studies. Other factual tidbits, whether from Fox News or Wikipedia, tend to leave out important nuances.

In response to the OP, the review closes with some commentary on law:
There is huge variation both in the prevalence of cannabis use and in the legal constraints on its use in different countries. The two are not necessarily linked. For example, both Sweden and the Netherlands provide models that have been much admired. Sweden has a highly restrictive policy, low cannabis consumption and few problems associated with cannabis use. The Netherlands has a liberal approach in which cannabis is available in designated 'coffee shops', and it has a consumption level that is near the European average but is well below that of France, Spain and the United Kingdom.

User avatar
Crius
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:27 pm UTC

Re: Marijuana (Serious Business Style)

Postby Crius » Sat May 02, 2009 8:05 pm UTC

The "gateway drug" argument has a little more to it than failing to understand correlation. The idea is that if I can prevent a person from smoking marijuana, that may also prevent that person from moving onto harder drugs. Or, put another way, drug use is a slippery slope, and it's best to keep people off it in the first place.

I can't say I agree with this argument, though. If you put all your effort into making marijuana seem evil, you'll lose all your credibility when people find out it's not.

MyGrandfather
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 8:43 am UTC

Re: Marijuana (Serious Business Style)

Postby MyGrandfather » Sun May 03, 2009 9:25 am UTC

First, I apologize for any bad grammar or spelling. English is my third language, but I honestly promise to try my best.

As a general rule I believe laws are a tool which purpose is to make coexistence, or society, function. I strongly oppose the use of legislation as a means to further one's moral views. In a liberal democracy the idea should be that only those actions that can be proven to harm others in any way, should warrent prosecution.

According to this I see no reason for the use of Marijuana being illegal.

When it comes to selling, one needs to consider whether it can be seen as causing harm to others. I would agree that selling heroin, a highly addictive drug, could be seen as taking advantage of other peoples misfortune, and facilitating further misery, but to argue the same for selling of marijuana I would need a whole lot more evidence of direct harm.

I've seen pot-smoking friends descend into heavy drug use and in a few cases schizophrenia, but as we all know, correlation is not the same as causation. It appears to me that people have two different motives for trying pot, either to escape something, or to gain something. The ones who use marijuana as a means to escape reality quickly find that it grows less effective, and will often move on to other things, but I suspect these people would find the downwards spiral anyway.

edit: grammar
Last edited by MyGrandfather on Sun May 03, 2009 11:17 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
el_loco_avs
Posts: 1294
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:14 pm UTC

Re: Marijuana (Serious Business Style)

Postby el_loco_avs » Sun May 03, 2009 11:07 am UTC

And considering alcohol is used to escape things in quite the same way it is... inconsistent to allow one but not the other. And alcohol is quite clearly damaging to many abusers.
You go your way.
I'll go your way too.

*GC*
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:27 am UTC

Re: Marijuana (Serious Business Style)

Postby *GC* » Sun May 03, 2009 8:03 pm UTC

I'll all for keeping marijuana illegal.

Just be consistent if that is how we are going to go with it. If marijuana is illegal then cigarettes, alcohol, caffeine, every narcotic pain killer (with or without prescription), and many more things need to be illegal too.

Marijuana helps me with a few different medical issues, depression, anxiety, knee pain, and "restless leg syndrome". This 1 nearly harmless plant makes my quality of life better. Now I have never been diagnosed with depression or anxiety because I know the doctor would just throw me on happy pills and call it a day, I don't like those pills and would not take them everyday so it's pointless. The knee pain isn't really documented aside from having the surgery and I didn't even know my "RLS" was that until recently, because I wasn't concerned about it, it's just me shaking my ankels around when I'm in bed.

My state is a medical marijuana state, but I doubt I qualify, as depression and anxiety aren't included as legit reasons. I might be able to sneak by on the "cronic pain" in my knee, but it's not a horrible crippling pain, it's more an annoying sensation that isn't pleasant.

But even without the medical aspect, who cares, I come home after a 12 hour work day, smoke a bowl, get prepared for work the next day, eat dinner, relax and go to sleep. How horrible is that! I am clearly evil and deserve to be in prison.

The only real problem I see with marijuana is to the best of my knowledge there is no "breathalyzer" type of test to show someone is currently under the influence behind the wheel.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests