The Marijuana-Smoke Shocker

Researchers surprised to find no link between marijuana, lung cancer
Study's findings apply even to heavy pot smokers
:woohoo: :applause:
The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Dr. Donald Tashkin, a UCLA pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.
:popcorn:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/26/MNGAKJ2S481.DTL&type=science
:bounce:

Since marijuana is NOT an addicting drug, and it has no negative or harmful effects on the body, such as the terrible effects and addiction of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, (street & pharmaceutical) that ALL been proven to have.

AS well as the many excellent medicinal purposes marijuana possesses and is used for daily.:patriot:

So why does the government still continue to villain-ize god's wild & wonderful gift of herb? :shrug:

Smoking clean, fine organic pot is good for the mind, body & soul...:smoke: Pot is also much fun to many and both enlightening & fun for others...:hi:

In CA there are NO real penalties, (maybe a small fine) for one having under ounce for ones own personal use. Still the government tries effectively to scare people about smoking it, are they afraid
of pot's known enlightenment qualities?
:think:

:kick:

and remains illegal has nothing to do with its effects, except economically. Dow Chemical had just invented nylon, and needed hemp outlawed because hemp is stronger and better than nylon. It gave the T-Men something to do since Prohibition was repealed.

The reason pot has remained illegal is that it is too easy to grow-corporations can't monopolize it and sell it for a big enough profit.

and Blacks could be arrested and jailed and/or deported.

Marijuana use was culturally prevalent in both groups.

"If you don't make it illegal, Mexican and blacks will rape your women!"

would help eliminate the illegal immigrant problem way back when by making it illegal.

"Nylon represents a family of synthetic polymers, a thermoplastic material, invented in 1935 by Wallace Carothers at DuPont."

"Some people surmise that Cannabis sativa was made illegal because the fibers from the hemp plant, used for fabrics and ropes, were in strong competition with nylon. But nylon fiber is more than twice as strong as hemp and weighs 25% less. While hemp was originally used in climbing rope, this is no longer the case, even in countries where cannabis is legal."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon

nt

Don't know about rope, but hemp clothes outwear cotton and synthetics, are easier to keep clean, and soften as they age.

superior to nylon or fiber rope material used today. There are so many ways that industrial hemp, a renewable resource, could be used for fabric, paper, etc., but crop production won't be legalized in this country until big business is no longer dictating to Congress what laws need to be passed.

the whole hemp is good for other stuff crowd. The people that say they just want to get high seem more honest. I mean in my everyday life I'm constantly using rope, so I can see why hemp rope is such a big issue.

I have never smoked, eaten, or otherwise used marijuana. I have never used any illegal drug, for that matter. I HAVE worn hemp clothing, however.

but I was so drunk on Jack Daniels, I can't remember what it was like. And there was a nitrous oxide tank at the party too, so maybe that's what made me sick the next day.

But I've never worn hemp clothing.

Hemp paper will save the forest. And hemp 'cousins' will enhance the walk. It's ALL good.

Are they honest or dishonest?

and it is all down hill from there, sometimes shockingly fast.

hemp does not degrade like nylon in the presence of O3, UV, etc.

they both had their reasons, and lots of money and clout.

was in lumber as well...

Reefer Madness, originally titled Tell Your Children, is a 1936 drama film directed by Louis Gasnier, who had well learned the silent era craft of over-acting. Its cast was composed of mostly unknown bit actors. The story was written by Laurence Meade. The plot revolves around the tragic events that follow when high school students are lured by pushers to try "marihuana": a killing, a suicide, a rape, and a descent into madness all ensue.

Tell Your Children was financed by a church group and intended to be shown to parents as a morality tale attempting to teach them about the dangers of cannabis use. Soon after the film was shot, however, it was purchased by notorious exploitation filmmaker Dwain Esper, who took the liberty of cutting in salacious insert shots and slapping on the sexier title of Reefer Madness, before distributing it on the exploitation circuit. <1>

Some sources have also claimed that the film was financed by Harry Anslinger's Federal Bureau of Narcotics, or even by anti-hemp interests such as DuPont or William Randolph Hearst. The claims that Reefer Madness was produced as an exploitation film, thinly veiled as an educational piece to comply with the Hays code are simply untrue. Though it is true that lesser-known films such as Esper's own Marihuana and Elmer Clifton's Assassin of Youth were/are exploitation, Reefer Madness is merely a misguided (and highly inaccurate) morality tale. Such education-exploitation films were common in the years following adoption of the Code, and the subject of cannabis was particularly popular in the hysteria surrounding Anslinger's 1937 Marihuana Tax Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reefer_Madness


Ok we have all heard this story before you scare the shit out of people and then you can take their liberties away.

The one with the girl who's melted into her couch, with the "friend" who explains that "this is how she is ever since she started smoking pot" just makes me crack up. And how many college students end up hospitalized or dead from binge drinking every year? :eyes:

couldn't take one more freaking anti-pot ad.

What a crock.

How stupid do they think we are?

I've melted into many a couch in my day. :hippie:

But I'm an old fogey now and don't have those kind of connections anymore.

...in that it gives the impression that all marijuana has the exact same effect, which is absolutely not even remotely close to true. There are literally thousands of different types of highs, all dependent on the strain and mix of indica/sativa.

I truly hate those ads - as if being couch-locked was a BAD thing. Yeah, maybe if you smoked that strain all day every day, but people abuse BEER that way and I don't see anti-Budweiser PSAs!

I'm sick and tired of this beneficial plant being demonized. People are literally dying in pain because of the lies.

It burns my ass that tobacco and alcohol are legal but marijuana is not. When big business figures out a way to control the supply and make money from it, it will then be legalized.

the one where the stoners hit the girl on the bike
at the drive through. I can't see it without thinking
of the Chappelle show parody...
"We killed her Yo!!! Cmon Bro we gotta chop her body up
and stuff it down the drain B!!"
http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=11913

Is because:

A. They are so unbelievably stupid
B. They primarily target pot, which is harmless (and everybody knows it)
C. They rarely include any facts, but focus instead on vague hypotheticals

Therefore nobody believes the PSAs, and assumes anything else they're told about the dangers of drugs is BS.

For a truly effective anti-drug PSA they should show pics of meth users like thesepeople, who used it for for as little as three months before undergoing dramatic changes to their appearance (not to mention suffering significant somatic and psychiatric effects). Including real facts would help as well, rather than using metaphors like "this is your brain on drugs", which just end up being jokes instead of doing what they're intended to.

which took me back to a painful time in my youth.

It is a scene where two boys are smoking pot in a den (or someplace similar).... The two boys find a gun, the scene fades and then there is a gunshot. Then the narrator states: "Marijuana, it's more dangerous than we thought."

I had a friend who died in a similar situation. However, the drug was alcohol. He had consumed a bottle of rum with a friend and they began to play Russian roulette (as his friend stated in the official report). My friend lost.

Alcohol, it's more dangerous than we thought.

It worked. But I sure did smoke a lot of joints. This is very good news. :smoke::smoke:

(primarily because of being overseas in places where you DID NOT want to be breaking the law).

So am I now at increased risk of lung cancer from run-of-the-mill environmental pollutants because I'm no longer killing off precancerous cells with a regular application of doobie?

Bummer.

pot is prevalent. the cops are fascist. and (christian) prisons are full of kids who if incarcerated on marijuana charges -- are all but certain to leave the (christian) prisons with many worse things to worry about.

not to mention SOMEBODY is getting rich off our huge overpopulated prison system (most inmates there for drug offenses.)

I've tried to tell them how much money they could make if they legalized and taxed it, but they ain't listening--they already have their demons all nicely painted.

...I've found nothing better to manage my anger. It's my last vice, dammit, and I don't want to go to jail for it.

then subsidised or controlled the industry and taxed it like they do tobacco and alcohol, they could wipe out the national debt in a couple of years.

wouldn't it piss mississippi off if louisiana suddenly got rich off pot?

:hi:

word was that some of the best weed available was grown in Meigs County, Ohio. One day, while driving through Meigs Co., I passed by the town of Longbottom. And of course, Tolkien fans know all about that Longbottom Leaf! ;)

They really have Longbottom Leaf in Ohio? Wow, you learn something new every day!!! :)

Meigs County Tennessee? :shrug:

but my, how times change... they bust a couple meth labs a week around here...

The fascist feds keep shutting them down! :mad:

There are harsh federal drug laws against mary-jane thanks to Reagan.

And the local law enforcement agencies seem to let it go. At the Ocean Beach outlet(pot store), the cops think its kind of funny and joke about it. The word is that they'ed rather see the locals stoned and passive than drunk or tweeked out on meth. There has never been a raid on medical MJ outlets here in SD.

We have twice voted for medical marijuana in Oregon. The federal government still targets those users & harass physicians that prescribe pot because they say that it interferes with their bogus 'war on drugs'. Yep, the bush*s feds say that they can over-ride law passed by the voters. Sounds kind of like 2000, doesn't it?

For one thing, I suspect that a non-trivial fraction of marijuana's popularity comes from the fact that it is forbidden; if it were legalised then consumption might actually fall, and certainly wouldn't rise as much as might be predicted.

45% of GDP? I don't think so.

let's say they put a $5 tax on a 1/4 ounce of pot and 10 million people per week (and I think that's a low estimate) bought a sack, that's $50,000,000 per week in taxes that wasn't available before legalization. Everyone I know that smokes buys at least once per week. Many buy 1/2 ounces or ounces too. Do the math and figure it out... it's not that hard, nor is it a far-fetched idea. Plus with money saved from not prosecuting and jailing the users... see where this is headed?

Open minds lead to opened doors, closed minds lead to dead ends.

ago with the national debt... the way it is now, it would take longer than a few years, but at least it would be making a dent... if we get rid of these thugs in charge now that have bankrupted the nation.

wealthy big time, and cut waste and fraud while restraining other program growth so that economic growth catches up with the budget growth. Taxing drugs would bring in very little compared to the $8,500,000,000,000 in debt we have now.

can help prevent prostate cancer later in life.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3072021.stm

(Wow! Who knew I was such a health nut when I was younger!)


More information that they would really prefer that you didn't know.

for the past 40 years, and I can tell you that I feel great, look great (well, sort of), am v-e-r-y mellow, and I NEVER get a cold, or any other illness, for that matter. I give a lot of credit to this magical plant. :hippie:

from pot? Can you believe they published that ca-ca???.. I posted the article here about a month ago and was so mad because it is so not true....

marijuana for medical usage?

just wondering.

in this one, putting pressure on the FDA....

THC for nausea.

Every marijuana derivited drug will be approved, but marijuana itself will never be.

It's pretty obvious as to why.

but WHY say it has no medicinal value and then turn around and manufacture marijuana derivitives?

In other words, I'm saying they are lying when they say marijuana has no medicinal value and nobody has called them on that lie.

:7 :toast:

This administration has been known to redefine knowledge in just about every field it funds. "Evidence-based ________________" is their mantra. Just garbage. All of it.

and all the rest of the regular users.

:smoke: :party: :smoke: :party: :smoke: :party: :smoke: :party: :smoke: :party: :smoke: :party:

I've heard that herbal vaporizors work great and there are some that are quite affordable. Granted, I've only *heard* this......:hide:

And, you should probably never go somewhere on the web that shows you how to make your own, like this site: http://www.onlinepot.org/medical/vaporizer.htm

Expensive, but well worth it, I'm told.

Because, let's be honest, just because a statistical association between MJ and lung cancer didn't rise to a p value of 0.05 (this is the general value for "statistical significance" meaning there was 95% percent probablility that the observed association was not due to chance, but was real. By comparison, if there was only 85 or 90% probablility that the observed association was *not* due to random chance, but was a real effect, it would still be described as not statistically significant.), doesn't mean that putting hefty amounts of particulate matter and combustion products into your lungs isn't bad for you. It is.

Really, trust me. This is what I do for a living - no not smoke, but study the effects of smoke, diesel exhaust, and other particulate matter on the lungs and immune system. Don't get me wrong, pot isn't anywhere near as bad as cigarettes, but even so, your lungs are meant to breathe air, not smoke.

Do your body a favor and vaporize. Besides, I've also been told that it makes your smoking material of choice last a *lot* longer (because you're not destroying 90% of it in combustion). As an example, your average cigarette has something like 10mg of nicotine in it, but only delivers about 1mg. A good deal of this discrepancy is that you are simply burning up the nicotine before it even gets past your lips. The same thing goes for other 'active ingredients' as well. Dig?

The volcano

on 4/19! Was so awesome, I'm going to buy one!

My father-in-law had surgery for cancer, and he NEEDED to put on some weight (build appetite) in order to proceed with chemo. Smokin' was much too difficult, but vaporizers make it very much easier.

Even if ya don't need one, tuck it in the back of your mind.... knowing this may very much help someone with the need to partake someday.

He was just recently diagnosed. Most likely from years of smoking (regular) cigarettes, although he quit them ten years ago. He didn't want to have to fore-go all of his favorite pastimes forever. This device lets him indulge in the *other* tobacco occasionally without feeling like he's terribly exacerbating his condition.

no matter how much or what I inhaled.

Went back to doobies--I guess I'm psychologically addicted. I did use pot to quit tobacco.

I know someone who had a medical prescription for pot, he swore by his Volcano. Never did work for me.

had to give it up to keep job w/great benefits. Alcohol is a piss poor substitue....

I actually think I got more done when I was able to 'get in the zone'.
:(

with much promise as an anti-cancer/viral/bacterial agent.

Science owes so much to the plants of this earth; you'd think humans would learn some respect...

But what a way to go!

Any particulate can increase lung cancer risks. It seems unlikely to me that pot smoking would not.

Unlike tobacco smoke, a couple of good hits and you're fine for awhile.

if you want them or not.

but people don't go to prison for sitting in traffic.

I said nothing about the law. If you want to lock yourself up for smoking go ahead. I simply point out sucking on your cars tail pipe is generally a bad idea. I would imagine smoking on a joint is likely to increase your lung cancer risks. I simply doubt the study. The method was not overwhelming and the mitigation effects were highly speculative. I'm not convinced. I amazed at how easily people are convinced by news they want to hear. I guess thats what keeps Bush in office.

And I'm amazed at how easily people ignore peer-reviewed science they don't want to hear.

Sounds like someone on this thread needs a hit. lol It's funny how people who don't smoke, vape or whatever like to pretend to be experts on what the lifestyle is like, what it does to your health, motivation, yadda yadda..

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and most people end up coughing at some point in the process.

it actually helps you clean things out, so to speak.

it past times, it was even prescribed to asthmatics.

athletes in the world (NBA players), I'd say that its destructive powers have been more than a bit overestimated.

Damn Hippies! :rofl:
Great Song

Jonathan Edwards
Shanty

Gonna sit down in the kitchen
And fix me something good to eat
And make my head a little high
And make this whole day complete
Cuz we gonna lay around the shanty, mama
And put a good buzz on

Well pass it to me baby
Pass it to me slow
We'll take time out to smile a little
Before we let it go
Cuz we gonna lay around the shanty, mama
And put a good buzz on

Well there ain't nothin' to do
And there's always room for more
Fill it, light it, shut up
And close the door
Cuz we gonna lay around the shanty, mama
And put a good buzz on

We gonna sit around the kitchen
Fix us somethin' good to eat
And make ourselves a little high
And make the whole day complete
Cuz we gonna lay around the shanty, mama
And put a good buzz on
Cuz we gonna lay around the shanty, mama
And put a good buzz on

It's a beneficial plant - though even some good-hearted liberals fall for the nonsense lies about it.

But, as long as they don't want it to remain illegal, that's cool.

it is NOT an addictive substance...
and i should know- i've been smoking it pretty much daily for over 30 years.

and a glaring lack of personal will power.
calling pot addictive is an insult to those who truly DO suffer from drug addiction.

now with the many ways of dampening the effects of withdrawal, you can detox fairly easily from anything.

And meth, the drug that people are clammering about?

No need for medical detox from it either.

Psychological dependence is what is commonly referred to as addiction in reality.

People don't do the same thing over and over and expect different results because of physical dependence.

If all were needed was physical dependence relief, there would be no drug problem in America.

:eyes:

of fried, fat saturated carbs, yes

and if you don't think that is as deadly as any other addiction, then you haven't looked at the fact that people are dying all the time from that very thing (in a rough sense that is)

I don't know whether or not Oprah has this problem but some people do.

People can get addicted to anything, though. Porn, Pepsi, potato chips...

the problem with calling any habit that a person really just needs a little extra will power to break themselves of, is that it marginilizes the causes/effects/severity of true addictions.

Oh, I know, you don't want to

dude,

don't deceive yourself

I will, of course, assume that you are cracking a joke.

If you can stop for 3 days without feeling like absolute hell, without being a complete jerk to everyone who crosses your path, and without counting the minutes down until your next hit... then I'd agree you're not addicted. :evilgrin:

it's not the pot i'm addicted to tho- it's the methadone.
but since i'll be taking it for the rest of my life due to chronic pain, addiction isn't really an issue.

It was a piece of cake to quit.

Alcohol, on the other hand, was brutal.

I'm not saying no one ever has any problems with pot- but I don't believe it engenders the kind of physical addiction that other substances do. And it should be legalized, regulated and taxed- no question in my mind.

it is NOT an addictive substance. I think there are people who seem to be able to become psychologically addicted to anything from potato chips to internet message boards, but marijuana is NOT an addictive substance. I tried a million times to quit smoking cigarettes and it was the hardest thing you can imagine (I finally succeeded in Jan. 2005). When a smoker runs out of cigarettes, they flip out and immediately have to run for more. But when I run out of pot, I don't flip out and I barely think of it at all and it is usually a special occasion that causes me to buy it again. I don't have any now and haven't since February but I thought I might get some for a party I am attending tomorrow. Even if I smoked it every day, it would not be an addiction. I eat cereal every day, too.

Pot builds up in one's fatty tissues, making its withdrawal symptoms far milder than just about any other psychoactive substance, including caffeine.

The only reason that healthy people get "addicted" to pot is because they like it too much. Of course, many sick people -- including those made sick from conventional cancer treatments -- need to use pot daily for its profound medicinal qualities.

I never said I didn't.

I was addicted to pot and it certainly wasn't any sort of snarky "addiction" either, thank you.

You can get physically addicted to any psychoactive substance. It's just that pot's physical withdrawal symptoms are the mildest of all psychoactive substances of which I'm aware because most of pot's psychoactive chemicals are stored in your fat cells and then time-released when you go cold turkey. This protects pot smokers who decide to quit from the harsher symptoms of the 99% of psychoactive drugs that are not stored in fat cells.

Of course, if we're talking about a purely psychological addiction (like surfing the internet, for example), then any ingrained habit -- which pot smoking most definitively often becomes -- can be addictive. And these addictions can often become personally destructive. This specific one simply doesn't cause lung cancer nor more-than-mild physical withdrawal symptoms.

i have a chronic and painful spinal condition, and even with the narcotic prescription meds i take, it would be MUCH more difficult to maintain without weed.

As for "addicted". I have no doubt that some folks have had problems with pot in their lives, and more power (or powerlessness) to 'em if they quit.

But from a scientific standpoint- of physical addictiveness, I would recommend you try smoking two joints a day, every day, for a year. Then quit cold turkey, see what happens.

Then try drinking a fifth of scotch a day, every day, for a year. Stop cold turkey.

Whole 'nother ball of nightmare.

Actually, I wouldn't recommend trying it. But there you go.

I've also quit other things cold turkey. I think I know what it did to me.

required medication and possibly hospitalization?

Cuz that's what I got with booze.

What is did say is that it wasn't so simple as a matter of pure will power as some seem to think.

live their lives, much less whether or not they're addicted to something. Not my call.

If you had a problem with it, and stopped, more power to you. Again, not my place to second guess what works in someone else's life.

What I will say, however, is that despite my issues with alcohol in my "reckless youth", I don't think booze -while clearly a VERY dangerous drug- is the devil incarnate or should be banned. I don't think prohibition works, not for booze & not for other substances. Personally, I don't do anything stronger than caffeine anymore- but I also think it's ridiculous that we spend $40 Billion a year on a "drug war" aimed primarily at pot smokers, particularly when -from my experience- for most people pot is not an especially problematic drug. The people who have problems with it don't seem to suffer the kinds of physical addiction that characterizes, for example, alcoholism. And even if it were, like alcohol, VERY problematic both psychologically and physically for the people who shouldn't be doing it, that would still be no reason to criminalize it for the public at large, in my mind.

But none of that should be construed as a minimizing of your personal experience, certainly not coming from me. Peace.

all that is left is the addiction

that's he psychological dependence

the physical is fairly easy to treat

if you had life threatening alcohol withdrawal, then you either quit cold turkey, or had an idiot for a doctor.

librium, the amazing librium, or valium for that matter makes alcohol withdrawal a routine thing that happens every day in America.

and the majority of people who are medically detoxed do what?

they relapse.

why?

psychological dependence on a substance. Treatment Works!

was, medically and otherwise.

I'm familiar with how librium can help people with the DTs. During my drinking days, however, I avoided doctors like the plague. And back then, a "tough it out" mentality was prevalent in many recovery circles.

Fortunately -for me- all that was a very, very long time ago.

And you're right about the intractable, long-term nature of addiction. In my experience, though, one size does not necessarily fit all when it comes to treatment and whatnot.

I'm happy to discuss some secular alternatives to 12 step programs that are out there with anyone who is interested.

You're confusing propaganda with science. The following chart shows the addictive properties of some common drugs including pot, Source: Jack E. Henningfield, PhD for NIDA

http://drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.htm

The propaganda on the other hand says treatment or jail, so they go into treatment. Treatment or you lose your job, so they go into treatment. Telling someone they will be punished if they don't and forcing them in inflates the statistics so they can pretend they have a real problem when what they have is what they created themselves in a for profit drug testing and prison enterprise.

We do not have crowds beating down the doors for pot treatment, we've got lots of users forced into it and taking space for no reason that could have been better used by someone with a real problem.

And I should have expected as much from a thread of this subject. I was, I am, an addict. Pot was one of my big problems -- a problem that I still struggle with every day. I understand that there are benefits to smoking pot. I don't judge people who choose to smoke for pleasure or for medical reasons. But I resent being told by those who are in no position to be doing any judging themselves that what I went through meant less than what what it did.

The title of the post I replied to was "Tell that to people who have been addicted to it."

Back up a step and lose the defensiveness, you haven't earned it.

"Since marijuana is NOT an addicting drug, and it has no negative or harmful effects on the body, such as the terrible effects and addiction of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, (street & pharmaceutical) that ALL been proven to have."

The only thing I argued was the premise in the title of the post I replied to. Yes, some do have problems with it. Kids have also lost college scholarships to Nintendo, chat rooms and other things. That's not to say that pot has no addictive qualities, if nothing else there's something to be said for pleasure reenforcement, in the end your morning cup of coffee or afternoon soda is more addictive in the eyes of science. Science doesn't support pot "addiction" as such, it's a creation of our laws and the way we force people into treatment, confusing it's not easy with I'm addicted.

Continuing the legend does hurt people, it robs some who need it of room for treatment and ruins the lives of some who never did. What problems you had with others I didn't comment on, just that part.

other's lives are ruined because they can't get that very same treatment. Many people apparently don't want to see that there are two sides to this coin. Your post essentially told me that I was never really addicted because the idea that people could be addicted to pot is merely "propaganda".

Isn't that exactly what I said above? I believe my words were "it robs some who need it of room for treatment and ruins the lives of some who never did"

Maybe if we'd quit hyping the problem and forcing people in those who actually did have problems would find room. Stop hyping and help instead. Just because you had a problem that doesn't mean everyone needs to be punished for it.

All I did was object to the OP's statement, and to YOUR implication, that pot is in no way addictive.

Problem is that as I said above science doesn't support "addiction" as such with pot. Addiction isn't just a slang term we use to say I'm addicted to chocolate or something, it has meaning in certain circles and requires a given number of things that pot doesn't have. Take a bit of time to read this page, maybe you'll see what I mean. http://www.drugwardistortions.org/distortion17.htm

It's not that some don't have problems with it, it's that they take advantage of the problems that some do have to hype it and hurt a hell of a lot more people. We aren't on different sides here, we both want the damage reduced. I'm just looking at an angle of it that you aren't, the hype does do damage. No, it isn't harmless either. I never said it was, you're arguing someone else's comments there. My words, again, were if nothing else there's something to be said for pleasure reenforcement.

Stop trying to tell me what I mean and actually read it. I said it for myself.

edit read this one too http://www.drugwardistortions.org/distortion14.htm

There is a difference between something that can be an addiction and something that is highly addictive.

There are a lot of reasons why pot is not legal but it boils down to the fact that it is not in the interests of either big corporations (especially Big Pharma, Big Beverage, Big Tobacco, Big Agriculture and Big Oil) or Big Brother to legalize it.

Guess what they lobby for...

I thought that the principle risks of smoking cannabis were mental health problems and to a lesser extent infertility, not cancer?

I'm sure you can find a long, long list of problems that cannabis *doesn't* cause, but there is good evidence that there are some that it does.

Also, the OP is wrong when it says that cannabis is not addictive, although it's less so than e.g. nicotine.

That's not to say that it should be illegal, but I do think that smoking it is strikingly unwise, and this study doesn't do anything to change that opinion.

Mental health problems, sure. Just like every other concoction that contains psychoactive chemicals -- from Diet Coke to over the counter sleeping pills to every anti-depressant on the Big Pharma market.

And because pot builds up in one's fatty tissues, its withdrawal symptoms are far milder than almost any other psychoactive substance. I know. I smoked it constantly for many years. Then on and off for many years, and finally not at all for a few years now. The people who are "addicted" to pot are typically far less addicted than the folks who need their coffee every morning. The exception to this is folks who smoke extremely potent stuff every waking hour because for these stoners the drop off is pretty severe despite all the psychoactive chemicals that are stored in their fat cells to be released over time when they go cold turkey.

To me, the big problem with pot nowadays is that it's too damn strong. Most pot on the market is so good that smoking just one hit is like taking a big belt of whiskey. More beer and/or wine level weed would diminish most of its mental health issues. However, as long as the criminalization of pot possession is increased by weight, there are extremely strong incentives to keep increasing its potency.

Yeah, they debunked that one about three or four decades ago.

And no, it's not addictive either.

I know that there is good scientific evidence than cannabis causes mental health problems, but I don't know if that consisted of brain damage or not - my impression is not.

http://www.ukcia.org/research/can-psychosis.htm is a study on this.

http://cannabishq.com/forum/index.php?topic=231.0 , while it appears to be anything but a reliable resource, does admit grudgingly that cannabis can be addictive (although it phrases this in such a way as to make it look as though it's denying it).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_issues_and_the_effects_of_cannabis has a good list of links.

I'm sure that people have produced studies *claiming* to "debunk" all the claimed risks of cannabis; however, the balance of evidence is heavily against the debunkers on the matters of mental health problems and addiction, and against them in the matter of infertility although that one is less conclusive, I believe.

The weight of evidence lies heavily on THC not being addictive, not causing mental health problems, and not causing infertility problems.

The FDA, for example, investigated this heavily back in the eighties when it approved THC for human consumption.

I don't normally resort to linkspraying, but in this case I don't see any other form of evidence I can use to raise this above the level of "Oh yes it does!" "Oh no it doesn't!". I've simply followed links more or less at random, listing anything that appears at first glance to be a study indicating that cannabis can be a causal factor for schizophrenia, or a respectable-looking reference to one; I'm sure some of these are suspect but many of them aren't, and I think they make my point.

http://www.cannabis.net/cannschiz.html
http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/cannabis.marijuana.schizophrenia.html
http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?level=4&id=4430
http://bipolar.about.com/b/a/223735.htm
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/185/4/352-a
http://www.healthyplace.com/Communities/Thought_Disorders/schizo/news/marijuana_2.asp
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12111342
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Radiology/2005RSNAMeeting/tb/2239
http://www.drug-rehabs.com/marijuana-schizophrenia-symptoms.htm
http://www.norml.org.nz/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=476 (interestingly, this one is titled "cannabis schizophrenia link refuted", and then goes on to explain that such a link exists.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s19004.htm

In doing so (picking articles with "cannabis" and "schizophrenia" in them more or less at random) I only came across two articles denying the link, one of which was clearly motivated by politics rather than science, and the other of which was brief and vague. I'm sure there are sources that do so, but they are outnumbered heavily, and outnumbered still more heavily among medical professionals.

While those who from the style of their websites appear to be motivated mainly by political agendas seem to be split (virtually everyone anti-cannabis seems to accept the claims, campaigners for its legalisation are split) the balance of opinion among ths scientific community appears to be very heavily in favour of the belief that it is a contributory factor.

The onset of schizophrenia happens to oftentimes take place at the same age that people tend to begin experimenting with drugs; i.e. early adulthood.

But I'm sure you realize that correlation is not causation.

Pot doesn't "make" anyone schizophrenic.

NT!

But, as you've admitted, the evidence appears to suggest that in people with a potential predisposition to schizophrenia cannabis can be a causative factor. It appears very likely that some people are schizophrenic who wouldn't have become schizophrenic if they hadn't smoked cannabis. That *is* causation.

It seems like it may exacerbate it, and common sense says that schizophrenics would probably do better without twiddling around with mind-altering chemicals.

None of that, however, is in any way, shape, or form a justification for continued prohibition, $40 billion a year for the drug war, and a government that takes it upon itself to tell consenting adults what they can do with their own bodies and bloodstreams. All told, alcohol is a far more dangerous drug - but prohibition doesn't work.

A lot of things are dangerous for some people. I'm part of the 10% or so of the population that can't (for what I am fairly certain are genetic reasons) drink alcohol, and I don't do any other mind-altering substances anymore, either. But just because *I* can't drink, doesn't mean I think it should be against the law.

But there's a big margin between "not harmful enough to justify making it illegal" and "harmless" or even "not sometimes demonstrably harmful".

to someone.

The few times I've been to Vegas, I have enjoyed going down to the craps table. Last time, I think I came out almost a hundred bucks ahead. Fun, relatively harmless way to kill a few hours... for me.

Other people's lives are destroyed by gambling. For some folks it's sex, or food, or what-have-you.

I think, chemically, marijuana IS one of the more benign psychoactive substances out there- at least compared with, say, alcohol. People don't tend to get physically addicted to pot-- Not like they do with booze. Not from what I've seen. None of that means that it's "harmless" for "everyone". Words like "harmless" are kind of meaningless in this context, without qualifiers. More apt would be, "relatively harmless for lots of people who manage to use it and still lead productive, happy lives". Context is everything. Hell, if a 100lb brick of pot falls seven stories on to your head, it's not "harmless" any more, now, is it?

And I think the science is fairly clear that while pot does not seem to cause major medical or mental problems for most people, schizophrenics and those predisposed to schizophrenia should probably stay away from it.

If that were the case, neither I nor any of my friends in college would have needed to use birth control.

Guess what. We did.

You're not seriously proposing an example of a case where cannabis didn't cause infertility as evidence that it never does?

Incidentally, a brief search on the internet suggests that I should have said "male inferility", so if you're female then it's less likely to have made a difference.

And I still don't buy it. I'm not talking about "a case". I'm talking about countless heavy, regular pot smokers I've known in my life who still somehow managed to impregnate at the drop of a hat.

And even if the effect was demonstratable, which I don't think it is- I suspect for many in the target demographic it would be a selling point.

Google can easily turn up a lot more.

They prove that a small minority of the population may face increased risks. People at risk for schizophrenia shouldn't use pot.

This hardly qualifies as a universal strike against pot because most people arent at elevated risk for schizophrenia. Meanwhile you mention impotence, which is completely unproven fearmongering.

Counterindication with schizophrenia, short term memory loss... thats it. For most people the main risk is forgetting where you put your keys.

Too much good hashish where I live.

Marijuana has been a live saver for an individual I know who has cystic fibrosis. He gets pain relief and help with his appetite from it, and it does not seem to have an adverse effect on the already fragile condition of his lungs. He'd probably be dead without it.

"Since marijuana is NOT an addicting drug,"


I flat out refuse this statement. Marijuana is an addicting drug, I have seen pot heads, spend money on their refer, instead of buying diapers for their kid, I have seen refer split families...I cant' believe that anyone can think, its not addicting...

On another note, I am for legalizing maryjane, shit if we got cigs and liqour legal, two substances worse than pot, than mary jane should be legal as well.

there is a world of difference between psychological addictions and physical addictions. People can become addicted to the Internet, picking their noses, whatever. This causes problems, obviously, however, trying to quit smoking cigs or alcohol can be much more difficult. Cannabis is Psychologically addicting, just like EVERYTHING else in the world that humans do, however, it does NOT have the same type of physical withdrawal symptoms as tobacco or alcohol does.

I have had this debate with my pot head friends also, and i'm of the mind, your mind, your brain, your mental health is part of your physical well being...like how stress can affect you physically, make you restless, anxiety, and all of that. My pot head friends refuse to quit, they have tried, and i have seen them go through withdrawls, that remind me of my own withdrawls with cigarettes, but its very possible that its NOT the same, as your post says.

I have seen my pot head friends, get split up with their girl friends, and wives, over this matter. I have seen my friends fuck over other friends, in order to get weed...and in truth, i have never seen anyone of my cigarette smoking friends fuck anyone over, to get a cig, catch my drift? One of my closest friends, would steal money from his wife's purse, and use her atm card to take money out to go buy an gram...

I just know, in my experiece, as a former pothead, and watching my other pot head friends go through life, that it is addictive...be it, psychological, or physical...i believe its both...

he stole the money, and treated others like shit, to get mary jane...because, because...? Why, because it was the cool thing to do at the moment? Denial is a wonderful thing sometimes...

I've known LOTS of pot heads and I've never heard of the compulsive "gotta have it right now" behavior you describe. Sounds more like someone with a serious heroin habit or a crackhead or tweaker on a bad binge. Stole the baby's diaper money...for weed!?!

I have known lots of pot heads too, and they all act about the same way. My friend Angel, would use the $ put away for diapers, and formula, and buy weed with the money instead...and then turn around, and borrow money from other people, to buy diapers, or come up with some lame excuse of where the money went...

"I needed gas"

"I needed an oil change" Shit like that...

Another one he did all the time, was, his wife would know the balance on the atm card, and the next day go out shopping, and when the cashier rings her up, the card gets denied, because Angel used the card, late that night before to get weed, or used it without telling the wife that he had...so his wife is standing at the check out stand, cart load of stuff, and she has to put everything back...I have witnessed this 3 times, and all three times, I paid for her items, so she wouldn't go completely fucking nuts hysterical...I had other married pot head friends go through the same thing, my friend Ryan would do this to his wife...its not just an isolated case...

Ryan and a good handful of my other pot head friends, aren't to the extreme as Angel is, but they are close. All of my pot head friends go through the, gotta save money for a house, gas, to fix the car, we need to save $ for other things, but what to they do? They don't save anything, they spend their money on weed...just like I see alcoholics do with their money, hence the term "drinking your paycheck away" or in the case of weed "smoking your paycheck away." This action to me, are signs of addiction...

Angel would also pinch sacks, when he would go out and get weed for his friends...i'm not talking about run by friends, I'm talking about friends he has had for well over 7+ yrs....my other weed friends are just about the same...except, they spend a good quantity of their money on $, and then complain that they never have any money for food, or other items, but they aren't as Anal about the $ for weed as Angel is.

In my book, Angel's actions in particular, are signs of addiction. I dont' see him taking money, or acting in this fashion, to get other items, just weed.

Angel wakes up and immediately smokes, he smokes on his drive to work, he smokes on his breaks, his lunch hour, smokes on his drive home, and smokes when he gets home...and almost all of my other pot heads fall into that pattern, they smoke whenever they got a chance...and to me, that is a huge sign of addiction.

Angel has also tried to quit numerous times, because it is one of the main issues, that him and his wife fight over, and he cannot last longer than a few days, before he breaks down and smokes. This issue, is one of the huge nails in the coffin for angel and his wife, they are now seperated, until Angel can act like a responsible adult, and not let his habits dictate his life...that is how bad it has become.

Thats what I'm arguing here on this thread, pot, is addicting, thats my stance, and what i have seen of my 15+ pot head friends, and my own experiences, I say, that it is addicting...

Like I posted in my 1st response on the thread, I am all for legalizing mary jane, you have no issue with me there, or so I think. I just have an issue with the notion, that mary jane is not addicting, I believe it is...just my .02 cents...

Once they realize that they are bad. I am in an eating disorder support group. In a way, we are all addicts or recovering addicts. There are some people who engage in eating disorder behavior for a period of time like restricting or purging, but when they are confronted with their harmful behavior they can give it up within a short period of time and not think about doing it, even in times of stress. People who have a hard time giving up behaviors which are harmful or manage but think about it a lot, especially in times of stress, have an addiction.

I have less than 200 posts on the DU, but I have been around quite a while. I have seen people congratulate themselves for having 10,000 or 15,000 posts as if they have accomplished something. But in reality, they are addicted to this message board and of course it is affecting their lives in some way. Even if said person has been on DU for five years, that is 8 posts a day, 7 days a week. But I am proof that DU is not in itself an addicting substance.

Likewise, marijuana is NOT physically addicting. And anyone who has ever been REALLY addicted to anything knows the difference. But there are individuals who can become addicted to absolutely anything. That is their problem, not pot's.

http://deoxy.org/mckenna.htm <--DOZENS of TM writtings!

http://deoxy.org/leary.htm <--DOZENS of TL writtings!

Took them a while, this report was done last year and I've been telling people about it since the Counterpunch article came out about it dated July 2 / 4, 2005.

http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner07022005.html

There's another report they might catch on to as well on pot and tumor growth, this one from Alternet. Mainstream press won't report real news much.

http://www.alternet.org/story/9257/

I think smoking high quality Marijuana helped me with my Asthma. I swear by it. It should be legalized. Maybe if the republicans smoked some doobies, they'd be a lot happier.

It'll depend on the cause so some might have symptoms aggravated instead, but with a lot of people pot does help. It functions as a bronchial dilator, from what I've seen myself and read elsewhere a peak flow meter might go down slightly immediately after use since it irritates the large air passageway but shortly after the reading is often well up.

Your mileage may vary. Some it doesn't help.

I felt that high grade marijuana helped to clear my lungs and open up my passageway. Also, I felt that doing things like push-ups, running, biking, etc., was also a big help (always had an inhaler with me just in case). Avoiding booze, cigarette smoke, dust, and cats/dogs also helped.
I felt that the really high quality marijuana was potent, yet not harsh on the lungs. Maybe the use of a bong, with the cooling water, would help people. I haven't smoked since I was a teen and in my early twenties. But I swear that it helped with my terrible Asthma. I was able to get in great condition and survive Army boot camp and two tours of duty without so much as weezing. I felt that the boot camp environment, where there is no smoking, dust free barracks, and tons of excersize, was a big help (despite the stress monsters called Drill Sergeants). Asthma is still with me as I get older, but if I keep the weight down, eat right, avoid cats, dust, and stay in shape, I have few problems. This from a guy who almost didn't survive childhood due to Asthma.

Tell that to the many persons I used to work with who sought treatment for their dependence on marijuana.

It's a nice myth that marijuana is harmless

in fact it can mimic the effects of early dementia in chronic smokers

I've seen many people who after many years of toking away, say, "man, it isn't addicting"

Personally, I think it should be legalized. And taxed. And the money used to fund things like healthcare for all, treatment for drugs on demand, etc.

But it isn't harmless.

And the study was not conclusive.

Just one study of many.

not when there's a war on!

I'm speaking from my experiences of many years of working with addicts in a treatment program.

As well as knowledge in that field

And of course Marijuana isnt harmless almost nothing is harmless. Just walking outside on a sunny day gives you cancer. The point is that Marijuana is not anywhere near as harmful as we have been led to believe by the government. I went through D.A.R.E. I heard that Marijuana was 'at least as dangerous as smoking tobbacco'. It turns out it isnt anywhere near as dangerous, nor is it anywhere near as dangerous as drinking alchohol.

Chronic use is not the same as addiction.

As for people with mental problems who smoke, we have studies that show people self-medicating with marijuana, we do not however have studies showing marjuana causing mental disorders in otherwise healthy people. You shouldnt blame an intoxicant for the kinds of problems that tend to drive people to use intoxicants.

I agree

but on the other hand, how many chronic users have tried to quit?

can they?

if they can they aren't addicted, and not everyone who uses crack cocaine gets addicted either by the way.

as for the dementia, the effects on the hippocampus by intoxication with marijuana resemble dementia more than anything else that I'm aware of.

Chronic use leads to forgetfulness, amnestic episodes.

the effects on the baby boomer generation are truly unknown at this point, will there be more dementia due to pot use?

Frankly I was glad to read that the use of marijuana was not associated with lung cancer use. I have asthma and pot made my asthma worse, however I smoked more than my share of it in my youth.

You can smoke pot every day of your life and not be addicted.

All evidence suggests that marijuana is not generally that difficult to stop using.

Not everyone who uses crack gets addicted but a hell of alot more of them do. Comparing Marijuana addiction and crack addiction is rediculous.

The effects on the baby boomer generation are becoming known, as this thread shows. There is no evidence of dementia, so there is no reason to suggest people are at risk. Pure fearmongering.

Forgetfullness! OH NO!

at least in the 10 years that I spent in my former career working with addicts, I saw plenty of people whose drug of choice was pot, and they were as addicted as anyone I've ever seen.

Addiction isn't really about the physiological dependence, although that is one symptom (that isn't required to make the diagnosis BTW)it is instead about psychological dependence and that is hard to beat.

I've seen many people who had polydrug dependence, including pot. Many of those had a greater problem giving up pot than other drugs. Why? Because the myth out there that it isn't really a drug, that it doesn't cause problems, etc.

Pot at the very least for these people led them back to active use of other drugs that had more devastating effects on their lives immediately.

I've also seen people who had smoked pot for many years and had true amotivational syndrome (google it) of course there are many who argue against it.

Now, with all of this, you might be surprised that I support legalization of marijuana, and really any illegal drug. Why is it the government's business if you choose to fry your brains out.

Legalize, tax, pay for health care, and pay for treatment on demand.

The war on drugs was lost before it ever started. The war on drugs is too much of a war that has the government playing both sides of the war.

Eliminate the illegality question, and you eliminate 90% of the criminality involved.

Then you don't need no stinkin' war!

Almost everyone that I knew in High School smoked Marijuana. Not one of them ever got addicted. I've never heard of anyone ever over-dosing from Marijuana. It's less harmful than booze. Now, I've had many friends with booze-related problems. I had to give up drinking myself. But, Marijuana? Most people that I know got tired of it and gave it up as they grew older.

And its how the prohibitionists spin this.

Pot, like pretty much anything people do, can become an addiction to people. You can get addicted to foods, shopping, sex, etc.

Because pot is pleasurable, relaxing, etc people can become addicted to it.

That said, it isnt like nicotine, heroin, or crack. It isnt inherently addictive to a large number of people.

and they were as addicted as anyone I've ever worked with.

I agree that a lot of people move on from pot, some onto other things, and some just move on.

But don't say it isn't addictive, because that is bullshit

If you look at the chemical make-up of Marijuana, specifically, THC, the ingredient in pot that gets you high, and compare it to the chemical make-up of cocaine, caffeine, or nicotine, you will see that there is a big difference. The chemistry of pot is not addictive, like cocaine, heroin and nicotine. Yes, some people get hooked on food, booze, sex, sports, whatever. But few, if any, people get addicted to Marijuana. And again, I don't think anyone has ever died as a result of an over-dose of Marijuana. I attended rock concerts in the late 70's where thousands of people were smoking pot. I dare say that if any of them ever eventually sought treatment for addictions, it was probably for booze, cigarettes, or maybe harder drugs, but not Marijuana.

Some people get addicted to junk food. Should we therefore make junk food illegal?

there were plenty of people who were admitted for addiction to pot alone, let alone pot along with multiple substances.

God's gift to us all ...

May or may not be a gift from God, it may just be one of those things that benefits some and not others.

when I smoked, it made my asthma WORSE

it made it hard to quit drinking which was really causing me problems

it made it hard to accomplish anything.

thank God I found a way to quit that saved my life.

Peace

I'm sorry it was a Bad Medicine for you .

I'm glad you found something that worked for you
to better your life . :hug:

drugs with physiological dependence that often requires medical treatment of some sort.

Alcohol
Sedative/hypnotics
benzodiazepenes
Opioid narcotics
synthetic narcotics
---------------------------
Drugs considered "highly addictive" by society but have no medical necessity for detox:
methamphetamine
cocaine
other stimulants
----------------------------------
Drugs that despite the notion that they aren't "highly addictive" have had plenty of people enter drug treatment for. And have high relapse rates like any of the other drugs listed above:
Marijuana
psychoactive substances like hallucinogens
inhalants
--------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the deal

Once you take the alcohol out of alcohol-ism, you still have the "ism"

with all of the drugs that cause physiological dependence, you remove the substance, and you still have the ism= benzodiazepen-ism, sedative/hypnotic-ism, etc.

With the "highly addictive" drugs like meth, cocaine, etc. the same thing:

methamphetamin-ism, cocain-ism

With cannabis, you might say cannabis-ism, etc. etc. etc.

The "ism" is the disease of addiction.

It is what makes a person relapse after successfully completing medical detox, structured treatment, voluntary abstinence from the substance.

No, it isn't "will power". Addicts have more will power than most people. They use their will in the wrong way. They will themselves to keep drinking no matter what the costs, to keep using pot despite job losses, lack of ambition, etc. And the same is true for the other "isms"

The "ism" is an oversimplified view of addiction, but hopefully you can get the point. It isn't the drug that is he problem, it is the psychological dependence on the drug for whatever the reason.

And once it has taken over, it does indeed cause changes in the brain that can be measured. (including THC) Addiction is no pretty picture, even when it is to little old harmless marijuana.

Now understand that I'm not an abolitionist. I personally think that drugs should be legal. People should have the right to fry their brains out if they see fit. I think drugs should be regulated, controlled for purity, taxed, and the money used to fund health care and treatment on demand for those who want to get off if they are addicted.

No not everyone will be addicted, and the causes of addiction are manifold. Genetics may play a part. Environment may play a part. Family dynamics may play a part. Culture may play a part.

Sorry folks, a lot of bad personal experience.

And as for "known enlightenment qualities" enlightenment? About as enlightening as LSD(~). It is chemical interference with your brain, but not in a manner that carries information, therefore it is not going to reveal the great secrets of life to you, however it will give you a whole new perspective. :smoke:

For medicinal purposes, sure.
For rope, oil, clothes, sure.

But for in general, I would support it bieng GM'ed so as to never carry THC again.

I'm going to leave now before I get flamed to pieces. Look, I have reason enough to loathe THC, and actuall good reasons to not worry so much about GM. (Ok, if it was not corporate, but the science behind it is sound, though I have to admit I don't want the Big Bastards to have any control, because they are complete pricks, and would screw anyone and everyone for a profit)

---------------------------------------------
Look, I'll make it up by making Hydrogen cars, OK? (Actually, one of my friends has been making the new ultraporous fuel cells lately. How cool is that? 65mg per g Hydrogen storage. (It becomes a viable engineering project at 60 mg per g)

Edit: Jail time? Nope, a fine is all.

But I'm also adult enough to respect the fact that other people should be allowed to make up their own minds about what to do with their own bodies.

to take an extreme example, if someone were to be suicidal, I would argue against that - it would be my choice.

They still have the right to make that choice, just as I have my right to choose to stop them.

In the case of crime - people will choose, for intance, to commit murder sometimes (sorry, another extreme example), and if there were some way to limit that choice, to force everyone to never murder again, I would be against that as that would limit their choice, but I would want those that do to receive appropriate punishment.

So, coming back to marijauna - people will make that choice, they will make up their own minds, as I have mine.

personal use of a substance.

Leaving aside murder, which invalidates arguments of liberty and choice because by definition someone's "freedom" to commit murder is the rendering null of another person's liberty and choice. Your freedom ends where my nose begins, etc. etc.

You have the right to "choose" to stop someone from committing suicide, in that suicide is illegal. However, you don't have the 'right' to march into your consenting adults neighbors' bedroom and tell them that the way they're having sex is a sin and they should cut it out right now. (didn't stop Texas from trying) That is, to be frank, none of your "fucking" business.

Likewise, I have the right to choose to support a consistent philosophical position whereby I don't think the government should be in the nanny business, and if consenting adults want to drink, smoke pot, eat fatty foods, listen to Celine Dion, or engage in otherwise potentially self-damaging behavior, that is their business as long as they aren't endangering anyone else (by, say, driving--- while listening to Celine Dion) neglecting their kids, that kind of thing.

Seriously, your examples are so far off the playing field as to render them useless, no offense. It's a very simple concept. My Body, My Business. Your Body, Your Business. If people want to drink Jack Daniels, hey- who am I to criminalize it-- even though for me, it's poison. And criminalizing pot -keeping it criminalized- is obscene. We waste $40 Billion a year on a drug war which is PRIMARILY aimed at pot smokers. Cancer grannies have to worry about the DEA. All this for a drug which no legitimate scientific study has ever even tried to argue is anywhere near as dangerous as alcohol or addictive as nicotine. It's ridiculous, its offensive, its patronizing, it's a waste of resources, prison space and lives (many rotting away mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent offenses) and philosophically, it's wrong on ALL levels.

Legalize it, regulate it, tax it. It's well past time.

murder or suicide, nothing of the sort. Sheesh, whaddya think I am, some kind of idjit?

They were examples of what choice means to me.
In other words, I believe that the collective choice (this is where personal experience comes in) to legalise would result in negative consequences on society beyond the positive things it would bring - we have as much responsibility to make the choice against as we do to stop global warming, if you get the drift. (except that global warming needs a hell of a lot more attention).

Do we get one another?

Socially Libertarian Philosophical Positions aside, I think the clear negative social consequences of the drug war alone far outweigh any imagineable negative social consequences of legalizing pot. I'm not pollyannaish on the stuff, although it was never a big problem for me, I did stop using it along with alcohol-- but my experience with the potheads I used to run with was always that they tended to be MORE aware of collective planetary issues, MORE tuned in to environmental concerns, than your average Joes.

Compare the damage wrought by potheads with that of your average gaggle of drunks. Or your average gaggle of Fat Merkins loaded on High Fructose Corn Syrup, Hydrogenated Oil, Gas fumes, pesticides, and FOX NEWS.

I'm not sure it's the potheads that are the problem.

I don't think it's any kind of a panacea; far from it, there's good and bad about it just like most other things- but I just don't think there's ANYTHING about it -in any way, shape, or form- that warrants criminalization, and from several standpoints- hemp, medicine, general social welfare, tax revenues, the music industry- I think legalization would be a major net gain for society.

And that is even though some folks can't smoke it, some shouldn't smoke it, and some, like me, simply choose not to any more.

Peace.

as many food additives, in a country with a lot of good growing practices, that is also something very formative.

ESPECIALLY no war-on-drugs. From what I hear, that is one nasty piece of work.

I think agreeing to disagree is a good idea too. I don't think gaol sentences are appropriate, as an aside, just fines.

If you legalized, regulated AND taxed just it as liquor is (it is the number one cash crop in many states- off the books revenue which local municipalities, community service entities and states don't see a dime of) that would be, in a sense, a "fine" for everyone who used it... not just those that happened to get caught.

'Nite! :hippie:

I had a bad experience with Ice Cream once, lets put everyone eating Haggan Daz in prison.

Surely you must have seen the no-gaol-time thing at the bottom?

If Marijuana is illegal it just takes some law and order politicians to turn a fine into jail time. This whole prohibition regime started with a tax stamp.

And I find it a bit funny that you think fining people for doing nothing wrong is significantly better than putting them in prison for doing nothing wrong. The underlying issue is that you want to make people criminals for having a hobby you dislike.

Why should I pay a fine because you dont like pot? Whats your excuse?

As if this was about what I like and dislike. Please read the conversation with the other poster.

"doing nothing wrong" in your opinion. I'm obviously not of that opinion otherwise I would not be advocating any penalty.

I have read your posts, not once have you presented anything resembling a rational reason for prohibition you have just said that you had bad experiences with it and that you loathe it.

Please, oh please explain to me why I should be considered a criminal and have to pay a fine for doing something that you loathe.

it.

"In other words, I believe that the collective choice (this is where personal experience comes in) to legalise would result in negative consequences on society beyond the positive things it would bring - we have as much responsibility to make the choice against as we do to stop global warming, if you get the drift. (except that global warming needs a hell of a lot more attention)."

seems closer to the mark to me.

I shouldnt have to pay fines because you 'believe' pot is bad for society.

Why do you think its ok to legislate your preferences and hunches? Why should I be forced to live by your standards?

Prohibition was never based on reason or evidence, it should end. If pot ACTUALLY causes problems we can make rational laws to address the actual problems. Clinging to prohibition doesnt make sense.

it is all my "preferences and hunches".

You will believe what you want to believe, you will look at the studies which provide evidence against vs pot doing one thing or the other, and ignore the rest; I require somewhat higher standards of proof and evidence when it comes to medical decisions, not just looking at only what you want to.

Don't even attempt to direct me to studies, like the OP, that say this or that effect never happened, because (suprise, suprise) I never made those claims.

Actually, there is, as always a chance that I could be completely and utterly wrong, so feel free to post links, I would like links to studies concerning A) Pot and schizophrenia and B) Likely impacts on society of legalisation.

If it isn't a peer reviewed journal, you are wasting your time.
And if it the conclusion has p or t >0.05, or is a preliminary study, don't bother either.

I have checked as many studies as I can, I therefore doubt that I am entirely incorrect when I say: "The psychoactive effect of THC, especially in long term users and persons inclined to schizophrenia, has in the former case has been insufficiently studied, and in the latter case, evidence for a statistical correlation has been found"

P.S. Don't even try to tell me I am for 'the war on drugs', or any of that BS.
Thankyou for your co-operation, have a nice day.

Please share with me this evidence that my ingestion of a plant hurts other people. Pretty please.

You claim your position is supported by studies, it isnt. You claim to have a high standard of proof, yet youve proven not a single one of your claims about Marijuana.

This isnt a matter of belief. If you are going to make people criminals for doing something, you need a damn good reason, not a belief that what they are doing is harmful or bad.

Marijuana may increase the risk of schizophrenia or effect onset in people already at risk, and it seems that it does cause short term memory loss. Big whoop. People with schizophrenia in thier families should avoid it, you forget where you put your keys sometimes. Those are the scientifically proven negatives. How is that a justification for making people criminals for using it exactly?

You arent for the war on drugs, but you are for making other people pay fines because they do something you dissaprove of.

That's really fucking democratic of you, stalin.

...if you think smoking pot is truly "harmless", you are fooling yourself.

Pot smoking might not manifest spooky physical side effects like lung cancer, but its emotional and mental toll is pretty well documented, especially the slowing of mental reflexes and the sapping of ambition.

Still, if people want to have their ambition and their speed of thought go up in a pleasant haze of bong fumes, whom am I to stop them?

I'm glad I never tried pot as a kid, and I am glad I've not tried pot as an adult. It just doesn't seem worth it.

(Sorry, I couldn't esacape the irony.)

http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/sagan.htm

And his speed of thought and ambition seemed to make it through okay.

If I went around disavowing people because they use chemicals, in all their forms, I'd have to lock myself in a closed room and never see or speak to another human soul.

Sagan's pithy commentary is pithy for reasons unrelated to his pot use.

(Sorry. Couldn't resist, again.)

I still think it puts to rest the whole "pot destroys your ambition" saw. If you're already inclined to sit around eating doritos and playing video games (who am I to talk. I still occasionally do that, and I've been clean and sober for years) then pot isn't going to turn you into a Lebowski Achiever.

But likewise, millions of people -hard working, taxpaying citizens- blow off steam with the occasional joint just like others have a beer or two after work or on the weekend with no detrimental impact on their life. If there weren't the conspiracy of silence due to the stigma and criminality of weed, I'm sure we would know of of plenty more intelligent, successful professionals like Sagan- who, it sure seems, enjoyed it recreationally without any obvious deleterious effects.

But most of us probably wouldn't care.

Hey, Welcome to DU, by the way! :hi:

Chemicals ingested, smoked, inhaled, applied whatever-- legal or not do what they do. I don't think that marijuana is the great panacea for all ills. I don't agree that it's harmless. Or that it's not addictive. Or that it can't cause serious lung problems. I used to smoke regularly, it fucked my lungs up. In fact I find it interesting all the pot defenders don't know of a single bad outcome, All good All the time. I do understand the uphill battle NORML and others have had to fight. Especially against government propaganda.

I agree that it can be extremely beneficial in a lot of areas. Chemo patients, AIDS patients, Multiple Sclerosis patients, it's a better choice than some of the toxic shit people are being prescribed for certain conditions. Or just for people just needing to chill. I've met people I didn't even want to talk to if they weren't stoned. It was because of a manic type behavior. They'd mellow right out, and come down here with the rest of us. (I wonder if it's been studied for that?) It's a great social gathering, a great place to be in your head if you need that kind of thing.

But all my opinions aside, the fact that it's an illegal substance is INSANE. Legalize it. And give amnesty to non-violent offenders who are rotting in prison because of some bust with intent to sell. When some nickle and dime basement hydroponics marijuana dealer does more time than a child molester, we have a huge societal problem.

http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006b/052606/052606h.php

he may not do any "time" at all.

Because the science says that it does not fuck up your lungs.

Science also says that it is not addictive.

Science also says that there is no known LD-50 for THC.

It's not physically addicitive, but anything that has a noticeable, sometimes even profound, physiological effect on your brain is going to be more psychologically addictive than, say, scratching your ass or drinking orange juice every morning.

Everyone who's ever cheesed on a bong hit can tell you that it fucks up your lungs. Probably not that much, granted, but for the uber-health-conscious, that may be a consideration. I come from the school of thought that says "anything that makes you cough and sometimes wheeze can't be all good."

You're right about the lethality of the drug, of course. Just for srgument's sake, I suppose that marijuana/THC could cause brain damage or even kill. Take, for instance, the Nixon-sponsored rhesus monkey tests which denied oxygen for several minutes at a stretch, or consider the possible neurological effects of trying to breathe nothing but Cheeze-Whiz for a while.

The original poster to this side-thread, btw, agreed with you 95%. Is there no middle ground? No place where everyone can admit some wrongdoing?

Full disclosure: I still drink and smoke tobacco. Espaecially at the same time. Why? Because of the frightening levels of mental and physical addictions of the cigs and beer -- physical for the cigs, and mental for the beer. I did, however, used to smoke a lot of pot. A LOT. Then, one day, I woke up and didn't want it anymore. Pot? Legalize it and tax it. If it weren't for my job, which is at the moment tenuous, I'd be a member of NORML.

Marijuana depressed me. And not just a little bit, either: one bowl and I'd become near-suicidal.

It's as you said psychologically addictive but not physically addictive, and the psychologically addictive aspect is a problem to some rather than to most like it would be with tobacco or another true addictive type.

The problem I have with calling it addictive as such is that in too many peoples minds that puts it in the same class with heroin, tobacco, and other things that are truly addictive. In clinical terms pot isn't, in psychological terms it can be to some though others pick it up and put it down without a problem at will.

The lung aspect is true, it irritates the large air passageway and with abuse can cause bronchitis. Not normally a fucks them up issue so much as irritates, it's not in the same league as tobacco.

Neither side does themselves any favors I don't think. It's a halfway type, not harmless but not a big deal to most. Can be to some though, and to those it's serious enough.

edit: spelling

You said it better, and more concisely, than I ever could.

Used to smoke pot. Don't now. More of a personal choice than any health reasons, though. Just don't like it anymore.