PDA

View Full Version : The Great Ganja Debate


Jah Warrior
05-27-2003, 12:58 PM
Jais probably suspected that sooner or later i would have to post something about this....

Ganja, Marijuana, Cannabis, Weed, its illegal most places except Holland and Switzerland and in other countries it is at best legal for medical purposes.

Do you think its dangerous?

Do you think it should be legalised?

Have you tried it?

What are your thoughts on the subject people?

C'jais
05-27-2003, 01:06 PM
Legalize the damn thing and get it over with. Better to have the government tax the hell out of it, than to have the dealers running around with it.

Yes, I've tried it, and as all other drugs it's dangerous when taken to excess.

Homuncul
05-27-2003, 01:27 PM
I guess it's also dangerous when not taken in excess. I tryed once some weed in school. That's where I really proved myself dumb. It'll never happen again. I'm for banning it.
When the thing is banned normal people who are commonly afraid to break the law won't use and especially not in excess. If they are provocated by it's legal use they will by it just to be sure that they can buy it now and will use it just to make sure they can do it now while they have no necessity to do it. These normal people are majority unlike us who tryed everything.
Smoking marijuana is more dangerous than just smoking. There're limits we must establish for such things. If let marijuana be legalized why not legalize heroin (in small doses by a high tax but still legalize)?
On the other hand sometimes the more apropriate measure of control is achieved by allowing something people are used to (smoking, alcahol, weed in some places) so giving them a sense of pseudofreedom to do what they want. Good for our governments, not healthy for us, while I think now someone is really hating me for mentioning health. It was my intention:D

SkinWalker
05-27-2003, 02:38 PM
Obviously, we can't make illegal everything that is unhealthy... however, THC is a drug and should be controlled like any other drug.

The half-attempts at justification for "medical use," etc. are invalid since there is no evidence to support that cannibis helps in the healing processes of afflictions like glaucoma or cancer. At best, it provides some pain relief and a sense of apathy to the user. Other, more predictable and safer drugs, are more effective at this.

I see no redeeming qualities to marijuana in any form. I see no value in making it legal. In fact, I think legalization will provide yet another justification for people, mostly kids uneducated about health issues, to increase use. Cannibis is more dangerous than tobacco, impairs judgement, contains many carcinogens, and affects the brain in many ways (motor reflexes, sesory perception, etc.).

A couple facts that I find interesting: Tetrahydrocannabinol is a fat-loving chemical, meaning it migrates very readily to the fat cells of the human body; the brain is composed of fatty tissues.

You don't need a PhD to come up with even a rudimentory hypothesis based on that information.

Take a look at this study: Ammenheuser, et al.(1998) Frequencies of hprt mutant lymphocytes in marijuana-smoking (http://home.earthlink.net/~ctfeagans/Marijuan Smoking Mums.pdf) and you'll see how there is compelling evidence to point to marijuana as a serious cancer-causing vector. Their study and control groups were small, but the results were still worth mentioning. The bottom line is that smoking marijuana may cause gene mutations that can lead to cancer.

Breton
05-27-2003, 03:14 PM
Another cannabis-debate?

Anyway, I really do not see any reasons for legalizing it. It is documented that legalization increases usage, and since we do know that cannabis causes damages, there is no real reason for legalizing it.

Jah Warrior
05-27-2003, 03:52 PM
ok so cannabis shouldnt be legal?!!? lol


In that case i move to ban alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, boxing, parachuting, cars, flying etc etc (anything that can be construed as being potentially harmful or dangerous)

The ammount of deaths by alcohol more than justify a ban on it. Alcohol's social implications also make it a significant contributor to domestic and non-domestic violence. Alcohol has a significant impact on peoples health and is WAAAY more dangerous than ganja.

As far as legalization increasing usage:- yeah - good!!!

In holland where they have the Tolerance of alternative lifestyles as part of their law cannabis use is not a big problem. Most people when they can easily and legally buy it will only have some once in a while, ganja is no big deal in the netherlands anymore. The fact that its illegal elsewhere adds to the intrigue and make it more desirable. Most of the Dutch guys I know dont really smoke that much if at all, they fail to see what the fuss is about with ganja.

Similarly in the states when prohibition was enforced, peoples' desire to get drunk increased instead of decreasing. There will always be a rush form doing illegal stuff and people are thrill seekers by their very nature.

I have a hard time to agree with the Cannabis laws when those that made these laws never even tried it for themself. Honestly ganja being illegal is an utter joke. :rolleyes:

Can't people have a choice in this matter? If i wanna get stoned then cool its up to me. I'm not hurting anyone else, so who the hell is everyone else to say what i should and should not be able to do!!!!!!:mad:


Of course you all know that there is not a single documented death attributed to Ganja, can the same be said of alcohol? paracetomol is actually riskier than weed and yet you can buy this in any pharmacy.

Breton
05-27-2003, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Jah Warrior
ok so cannabis shouldnt be legal?!!? lol


Why is that funny? :mad:

In that case i move to ban alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, boxing, parachuting, cars, flying etc etc (anything that can be construed as being potentially harmful or dangerous)

Unfortunatly, you do not here separate between damaging and dangerous. Tobacco, overusage of alcohol, drugs and boxing is damaging. Cars, planes, ect. is dangerous.

And damaging is worse than dangerous.

The ammount of deaths by alcohol more than justify a ban on it. Alcohol's social implications also make it a significant contributor to domestic and non-domestic violence. Alcohol has a significant impact on peoples health and is WAAAY more dangerous than ganja.

More people drink alcohol, so that agrument isn't too valid. And even if abusing alcohol is worse than "ganja", that certainly doesn't give any reason for legalizing 'bis. That's like saying braking a guy's nose on the street should be legal just because they hit harder in boxing games, where it is legal.

As far as legalization increasing usage:- yeah - good!!!

:rolleyes:

In holland where they have the Tolerance of alternative lifestyles as part of their law cannabis use is not a big problem. Most people when they can easily and legally buy it will only have some once in a while, ganja is no big deal in the netherlands anymore. The fact that its illegal elsewhere adds to the intrigue and make it more desirable. Most of the Dutch guys I know dont really smoke that much if at all, they fail to see what the fuss is about with ganja.

Look, if it had been legal to kill, would it be more people or less people that would kill? You see my point? Can't find the source right now, but the information about legalization leading to more usage comes from a goverment drug departement guy.

Similarly in the states when prohibition was enforced, peoples' desire to get drunk increased instead of decreasing. There will always be a rush form doing illegal stuff and people are thrill seekers by their very nature.

I think that says more about the people that will rather do something illegal than legal, than it says about how damaging 'bis is.

I have a hard time to agree with the Cannabis laws when those that made these laws never even tried it for themself. Honestly ganja being illegal is an utter joke.

Do you really think a drunk person knows more about what's happening in his brain than for instance a doctor with specialisation on alcohol damages? The fact that drug abusers use drugs in the first place is a sign that they have no idea of the damages of drugs.

Smoking 'bis does not make you more fit to decide 'bis-laws, it's pretty much the opposite.

Can't people have a choice in this matter? If i wanna get stoned then cool its up to me. I'm not hurting anyone else, so who the hell is everyone else to say what i should and should not be able to do!!!!!!

Please say that to the family of the 9-year old girl who got killed in Trondheim by a person high on 'bis. Drugs does hurt other people than the user. The family of the user for instance. The state, since it is more likely the user will go on social security, and the Gov loses important tax money. People that get dragged into these drug enviroments. And many others.

Of course you all know that there is not a single documented death attributed to Ganja, can the same be said of alcohol? paracetomol is actually riskier than weed and yet you can buy this in any pharmacy.

Read the stuff I said about the difference between damaging and dangerous. Paracetamol is only dangerous if you take much more than you should. 'Bis is damaging no matter how little you take of it.

munik
05-27-2003, 07:22 PM
The idea of someone telling you that you are not allowed to do something because it's bad for you makes some object. If you want to talk about how bad drugs are for your body, fine. But drugs do not make anyone do anything. Ever. They may impair your reflexes, or you inhibitions, or choices, but they don't cause you to do anything. Using drugs as an excuse for poor behavior, or inappropiate actions is despicable.

Now, if I choose to destroy my body, I believe I should be allowed to. I do not appreciate being restricted by a government that thinks it knows better then I in regards of how to treat my body.

I believe that the reality of keeping marijuana illegal has nothing to do it's effects on the body. That is used to sway the masses, as altering your perception of reality is seen as undesirable by the culture in general. If marijuana was to be legalized, the amount of money lost would be staggering. We have spent so long shoring up our defenses against drugs, that to suddenly abandon them is not feasible.

We have numerous federal agencies that concern themselves with drugs. That is plenty of jobs, and federal funding, that would be lost.

We have so many marijuana related incarcerations that it's ludicrous. Those prisoners generate an enormous amount of jobs.

The ramifications of legal hemp and it's impact on the market. Can you imagine what a durable natural fiber, that can grow in any part of the U.S. with ease, would do to the companies that produce synthetic fibers? Or the use of hemp oil, same thing. Yes, people will make money from hemp, farmers and entrepenuers. But what about those who made money before? They stand to lose, and in turn also do not want to see legalized hemp, regardless of it's benefits.

Legalize it and tax it isn't going to be that productive either. It's such a hardy plant, and so simple to grow, that anyone who disliked a large marijuana tax could simply grow their own. Without getting caught, as the clandestine methods of growing now work so well, they would also work well if it was legal.

Making it legal would be nice, but not that big a deal to me. I'm not that concerned with following every single law made up, and I do not feel guilty or consider myself a "criminal" for disobeying the law. I would much rather have marijuana redeemed, change the public opinion about it by showing actual use by everyday people, then to have it legalized.

Dagobahn Eagle
05-27-2003, 08:09 PM
ok so cannabis shouldnt be legal?!!? lol
Didn't anyone ever tell you not to try to ridicule the other side. You see, the only thing you get out of it is that people dislike you, not that the opposing side's arguments seem weaker.

In that case i move to ban alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, boxing, parachuting, cars, flying etc etc (anything that can be construed as being potentially harmful or dangerous)
Alcohol: Been there, tried that. I'd have LOVED to see tobacco and alcohol banned, but I don't think it'd be possible. Usage would have to go down really far first.
Caffeine: And just how many people does coke and coffee kill each year?
Boxing: Pretty stupid thing, yes, but their choice:p. Not too many people die from it each year.
Parachuting: Relatively safe.
Cars: Wouldn't the transportation system suffer a bit?
Flying: Crossing the Atlantic would take days.
Anything dangerous: EVERYTHING is potentially dangerous.

I suggest you grow some maturity. This forum is for serious discussion.

Similarly in the states when prohibition was enforced, peoples' desire to get drunk increased instead of decreasing. There will always be a rush form doing illegal stuff and people are thrill seekers by their very nature.

They'll get an equal thrill from all the people they annoy when they walk around high on cannabis on Times Square just to piss people off. "Hey, look at me, I'm killing myself because I know you hate it!!"

I have a hard time to agree with the Cannabis laws when those that made these laws never even tried it for themself. Honestly ganja being illegal is an utter joke.

So? I'll go with what Breton said, but I'll add that the reason why they haven't used it is they know it's bad.

- - - -
Now, if I choose to destroy my body, I believe I should be allowed to. I do not appreciate being restricted by a government that thinks it knows better then I in regards of how to treat my body.
No, because then we would have to sit there and watch depressed people doing self-mutilation and suiciders killing themselves, all without being able to do anything.

Just damaging your body is selfish as long as it's not an addiction (when it's an addiction you're trying to break, fine). Good to me, just pass away without caring about the people you leave behind. It's your body:rolleyes:.

I believe that the reality of keeping marijuana illegal has nothing to do it's effects on the body. That is used to sway the masses, as altering your perception of reality is seen as undesirable by the culture in general.
And your evidence is..?

We have numerous fed[eral agencies that concern themselves with drugs. That is plenty of jobs, and federal funding, that would be lost.
No, they would still care about the drug use even if it was legalized.

The ramifications of legal hemp and it's impact on the market. Can you imagine what a durable natural fiber, that can grow in any part of the U.S. with ease, would do to the companies that produce synthetic fibers? Or the use of hemp oil, same thing. Yes, people will make money from hemp, farmers and entrepenuers. But what about those who made money before? They stand to lose, and in turn also do not want to see legalized hemp, regardless of it's benefits.
No, because they would switch to producing the new, legalized stuff. Invalid argument. If I was selling coke, and suddenly sprite became more popular, I'd simply switch to stocking more sprite than coke, not try to ban sprite.

Legalize it and tax it isn't going to be that productive either. It's such a hardy plant, and so simple to grow, that anyone who disliked a large marijuana tax could simply grow their own. Without getting caught, as the clandestine methods of growing now work so well, they would also work well if it was legal.
Again: Evidence why the government thinks this is a reason to legalize weed.

Yes, I've tried it, and as all other drugs it's dangerous when taken to excess.
Do you mean Only when taken in excess?
Because if you mean that cannabis is not dangerous to you, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. If tobacco is harmful, why not marihuana and cannabis?

You may not OD on it, but your lungs are getting pretty black. If people were aware of the harmful effects of tobacco when it was discovered, maybe we wouldn't be smoking today?

But drugs do not make anyone do anything. Ever. They may impair your reflexes, or you inhibitions, or choices, but they don't cause you to do anything. Using drugs as an excuse for poor behavior, or inappropiate actions is despicable.
I'm curious as to how much you know about tobacco, drugs, and alcohol.

You do crazy things when you're high. You do crazy things when you're intoxicated. And the fact is, many people who do things when high or drunk would not have done those things if they were sober or not-high. Take drunk driving. The alcohol makes them all dizzy and dangerous.

Drugs are even worse, because they make you steal and stuff to make money for them.

Jah Warrior
05-27-2003, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Drugs are even worse, because they make you steal and stuff to make money for them.

what bollocks:rolleyes:


btw thanks for branding me as a thief...

Your post was almost making sense until you used that broad generalisation, it voids your comments entirely!

munik
05-27-2003, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
No, because then we would have to sit there and watch depressed people doing self-mutilation and suiciders killing themselves, all without being able to do anything.This has nothing to do with smoking marijuana and supposedly harming yourself in the process.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
And your evidence is..?I have no evidence for this. If you are intent on me proving it, I won't. I guess we can say I fabricated this, and the American culture in general does not see mind altering drugs as a negative thing.


Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
No, they would still care about the drug use even if it was legalized.How would the DEA still be involved here? How would the National Guard (who burn tons of marijuana a year found on government property) still be involved? How about the Border Patrol, how would they still be involved? I could go on for quite some time listing agencies.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
No, because they would switch to producing the new, legalized stuff. Invalid argument. If I was selling coke, and suddenly sprite became more popular, I'd simply switch to stocking more sprite than coke, not try to ban sprite.That is quite a far fetched idea. Of course if you are in a small grocery store you would just switch products, but that is not what I said. I said PRODUCERS. Those are the people who make it. And it's not about trying to ban it, it's about keeping it banned. A company needs to protect it's interests and investments. Just up and selling everything about your company so you can switch to making another product isn't going to be the best option.


Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Again: Evidence why the government thinks this is a reason to legalize weed.Once again, this is not a claim I made. I suggest if you want evidence, you go look for it yourself. I am not going to prove statements that you put into my mouth.


Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
You do crazy things when you're high. You do crazy things when you're intoxicated. And the fact is, many people who do things when high or drunk would not have done those things if they were sober or not-high. Take drunk driving. The alcohol makes them all dizzy and dangerous.

Drugs are even worse, because they make you steal and stuff to make money for them. Ok, your alcohol analogy is true. If my equilibrium is off because of alcohol, then you can say that alcohol made me lose your balance and fall over. Drugs can be blamed for the physical differences they induce. But drugs do not make you steal. They don't make you kill people. They don't make you have sex. They don't make you do things at all. That is what I am trying to say, I guess I wasn't that clear about it. If you consume marijuana, and it lowers your inhibitions and you do something you wouldn't have done sober, it is your fault and not the drug. Lowered inhibitions means you feel less restricted, or less guarded. But you still do things you want to do. Now if you smoked marijuana, and you got a little off balance because of it and fell on a baby and killed it, then I agree that you can blame marijuana for killing the baby, as retarded as that is. I believe it's just a cop out, a way to shirk the blame.

ShockV1.89
05-28-2003, 01:47 AM
what bollocks

It's not, really... Many of the more serious drug addicts will lose their jobs due to their habit, then run out of money and begin stealing to support it. Ask my father. He works across the street from a crackhouse, and cars are regularly broken into in the parking lot. He lost his CD deck and amplifier before he started parking behind the building.

I've seen some people that go crazy with the stuff and ruin their lives. I've seen some that go crazy and stay okay. I've seen some that barely do any of are okay. So I really dont have a position, although I find it very distasteful myself.

I tried it once about a month ago with my girlfriend. She liked it, but it didnt do anything to me. I got a little dizzy for about five minutes, then went back to normal. I had fun hitting the breaks on my car and watching her get all woozy and giggly, though.

SkinWalker
05-28-2003, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by Jah Warrior
The ammount of deaths by alcohol more than justify a ban on it. Alcohol's social implications also make it a significant contributor to domestic and non-domestic violence. Alcohol has a significant impact on peoples health and is WAAAY more dangerous than ganja.

The "WAAAY more dangerous" part may be true in as far as the immediate effects are concerned, but "ganja" definately slows the reflexes and dulls reaction times. For someone who depends on these skills (say, the driver of a car, plane, train, bus, lorry, etc.) for survival, the danger is increased.

But the first part of your quote is actually an argument for the continued prohibition of marijuana.

If we already have a legal drug that is that problematic, why create another. Wouldn't this effectively double our social problems, domestic disturbance calls, etc.

Okay... I'll concede that "double" is probably a bit much, since many of the people who already use MJ will continue. But it is also fair to expect that, with legal okay, usage will also increase. It might even increase beyond current use. Current users will no longer feel the need to "lay low" and will be more open. The problem for society and it's new problematic, legal drug will increase.

In fact, one could postulate that marijuana will have the intoxicating qualities of alcohol (with the more immediate social problem of intoxication) and the long-term health problems of tobacco (with a far increased tar consumption).

The argument that legalization would solve the problems that go with illicit marijuana use are invalid. The crimes will merely change. New laws will be formed to punish those that cause problems within society with their "ganja" .... crimes commited while under the influence will involve stiffer penalties... etc.. The tacit "okay" from society that will be stamped along with the legalization will give people (mostly teenagers) the idea that other drugs might be okay as well. "After all, the eased up on marijuana when so many people just did it anyway!"

I work with at-risk teens, most are on probation. I can't tell you how many kids I meet that think everybody smokes marijuana. It is incomprehensible to them to meet another teen that has never tried it. The fact is that most teenagers don't smoke it, but the ones they hang with do.

I don't have a problem with well-informed, consenting adults who understand the health issues, blazing up now and again. I have a real problem listening to kids justify their habits and talk about how it's not dangerous, and how it has to be good for you because it's natural and "don't they let you smoke it for medical reasons now?"

I don't preach to these kids about how they need to "just say 'no.' " Instead I try to educate them about the health issues and let them choose for themselves. Many choose their health... many don't. Almost none of them bother with cigarrettes... after all, those things will kill you.

We don't need a third, legal but dangerous and problematic drug. Even if it's to make a stand. Keep it illegal so people will keep it on the down low. They don't bother me.... I don't bother them.

Unless their probation officer sends them to me.

Kinnopio?
05-28-2003, 04:28 AM
Caffeine: And just how many people does coke and coffee kill each year?
Boxing: Pretty stupid thing, yes, but their choice. Not too many people die from it each year.
Parachuting: Relatively safe.
Cars: Wouldn't the transportation system suffer a bit?
Flying: Crossing the Atlantic would take days.
Anything dangerous: EVERYTHING is potentially dangerous.

Caffeine and coke kill about as many people as marijuana. You know, it can be expensive to buy these heavily addictive drinks instead of water, as well as less healthy.
Funny that the arguement you make for boxing could be applied to any drug.


I suggest you grow some maturity. This forum is for serious discussion.

I thought you said we shouldn't insult each other?



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly in the states when prohibition was enforced, peoples' desire to get drunk increased instead of decreasing. There will always be a rush form doing illegal stuff and people are thrill seekers by their very nature.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


They'll get an equal thrill from all the people they annoy when they walk around high on cannabis on Times Square just to piss people off. "Hey, look at me, I'm killing myself because I know you hate it!!"

Yeah, because you know people only get stoned to piss you off. I bet you hate the movies, what with all the people sitting motionless in the dark consuming fatty popcorn, candy, and soda.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, if I choose to destroy my body, I believe I should be allowed to. I do not appreciate being restricted by a government that thinks it knows better then I in regards of how to treat my body.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No, because then we would have to sit there and watch depressed people doing self-mutilation and suiciders killing themselves, all without being able to do anything.

You can't be talking about marijuana here. Responsible use does not cause depression or suicide- the only stressful aspects are hiding it from parents and cops. (Speaking from experience here.)


Just damaging your body is selfish as long as it's not an addiction (when it's an addiction you're trying to break, fine). Good to me, just pass away without caring about the people you leave behind. It's your body.

I agree that you should consider the pain you may cause to those close to you before taking certain actions. I do not believe smoking marijuana to be a damaging activity however.

Anyway, 'selfishness' is not illegal.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have numerous fed[eral agencies that concern themselves with drugs. That is plenty of jobs, and federal funding, that would be lost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No, they would still care about the drug use even if it was legalized.

As was said, marijuana prohibition provides thousands of jobs in law enforcement. Many, many prison guards would lose their jobs if the pot offenders were freed.


No, because they would switch to producing the new, legalized stuff. Invalid argument. If I was selling coke, and suddenly sprite became more popular, I'd simply switch to stocking more sprite than coke, not try to ban sprite.

...and then Coca-Cola would be SOL now that everyone's buying a competitor's product. It isn't simple to just switch from logging forests to farming hemp.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legalize it and tax it isn't going to be that productive either. It's such a hardy plant, and so simple to grow, that anyone who disliked a large marijuana tax could simply grow their own. Without getting caught, as the clandestine methods of growing now work so well, they would also work well if it was legal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Again: Evidence why the government thinks this is a reason to legalize weed.

This is a reason it shouldn't ever have been illegal.


Do you mean Only when taken in excess?
Because if you mean that cannabis is not dangerous to you, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. If tobacco is harmful, why not marihuana and cannabis?

You may not OD on it, but your lungs are getting pretty black. If people were aware of the harmful effects of tobacco when it was discovered, maybe we wouldn't be smoking today?

Who's smoking tobacco? Not me. Cigs have plenty of tar and chemical additives mixed in, and even if you smoke pipe tobacco, it goes to the smaller bronchial tubes and shrinks and clogs them longer- the opposite of marijuana which goes to the main tubes and widens them, allowing more oxygen to be inhaled. Plus nicotine is physically addictive, which pot isn't.


I'm curious as to how much you know about tobacco, drugs, and alcohol.

You do crazy things when you're high. You do crazy things when you're intoxicated. And the fact is, many people who do things when high or drunk would not have done those things if they were sober or not-high. Take drunk driving. The alcohol makes them all dizzy and dangerous.

Drugs are even worse, because they make you steal and stuff to make money for them.
Sometimes you do stupid stuff when stoned. Not nearly as much as with alcohol and often you are more cautious but it's true that it can impair judgement. That's why you should use it responsibly, i.e. after work when relaxing.

Now, you say "drugs" make you steal? Last I checked I was giving the orders, not my dime sack. Perhaps the desire for some physically addictive drugs such as alcohol or cocaine can drive one to theft, but marijuana is no more addictive than television, sports, or computers. True, there exists a minority which partakes to excess as there is with any hobby. Since any addiction is purely mental you cannot blame the hobby.

What often gets to me is that marijuana is always classified as a DRUG alongside heroin, cocaine, exstacy, etc. People need to realize the very important differences between the various intoxicants; cannabis is much safer than alcohol. It's like comparing a butter-knife to a meat cleaver.

ShockV1.89
05-28-2003, 04:38 AM
Why is it people use their own personal experiences or those of their friends to make broad decisions concerning whole populations? "Drugs dont make you steal, because I smoke weed and I'm not stealing anything." or "A few of my friends smoke weed and they're just fine, so they should legalize it because it's not dangerous!"

Doesnt make sense really. It's not an accurate representation of a population.

SkinWalker
05-28-2003, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Kinnopio?
Caffeine and coke kill about as many people as marijuana.

Balderdash. The worst, most-damaging physical effect for most people who drink the caffeine-laden coffee is stained teeth. True, people with high-blood pressure should avoid over-consumption, but this is an affliction that was already present. Caffeine has never been linked as a major health problem, carcinogin, or shown to alter the mind so as to impair judgement, motor reflexes, etc. If by "coke" you refer to the cola kind, the worst health effects that one can expect is obesity, which can lead to type 2 diabetes and other health problems.


Originally posted by Kinnopio?
You can't be talking about marijuana here. Responsible use ....

What, exactly, consists of responsible use?


Originally posted by Kinnopio?
I agree that you should consider the pain you may cause to those close to you before taking certain actions. I do not believe smoking marijuana to be a damaging activity however.

In spite of the preponderance of evidence that suggests that it is a major carcinogen, contains a higher abundance of tar than factory produced cigarrettes, and, with long-term use, can cause genetic defects as well as reproductive problems?

Originally posted by Kinnopio?
As was said, marijuana prohibition provides thousands of jobs in law enforcement. Many, many prison guards would lose their jobs if the pot offenders were freed.

Don't flatter yourself. You aren't the only criminal out there (I'm referring to the recreational marijuana smoker).


Originally posted by Kinnopio?
Not me. Cigs have plenty of tar

Not as much as marijuana.

Originally posted by Kinnopio?
it goes to the smaller bronchial tubes and shrinks and clogs them longer- the opposite of marijuana which goes to the main tubes and widens them, allowing more oxygen to be inhaled.

Interesting... might even be true. Care to cite a source?

Originally posted by Kinnopio?
Plus nicotine is physically addictive, which pot isn't.

Addictive is addictive. If gambling can be addictive, so can smoking drugs. I hear this from kids every day. But they don't stop... even when their freedom is at stake (it violates their probation to smoke... they provide a urine sample... the rest is a court case). I recently read a hypothesis that postulated that the reason why marijuana has been considered "not physical addictive" to date is that it resides in the fat cells for long periods of time, being slowly released. In essence, it is it's own "methadone clinic." I'll have to see if I can find this paper.

Originally posted by Kinnopio?
Sometimes you do stupid stuff when stoned. Not nearly as much as with alcohol and often you are more cautious but it's true that it can impair judgement.

Your source?

Originally posted by Kinnopio?
That's why you should use it responsibly, i.e. after work when relaxing.

Uh-huh.... there's that "responsibly" thing again. If memory serves correct, that was started by the Anheuser-Busch company as a way of increasing sales by giving the appearance of being a responsible corporation.... party responsibly.

Originally posted by Kinnopio?
True, there exists a minority which partakes to excess as there is with any hobby. Since any addiction is purely mental you cannot blame the hobby.

The "mental" part of your addiction has to do with seratonin, dopamine, and endorphine releases in the brain. Since these are physical chemicals, and since they are released in response to various stimuli, it can be easily demonstrated that addiction is physical.

Originally posted by Kinnopio?
What often gets to me is that marijuana is always classified as a DRUG alongside heroin, cocaine, exstacy, etc. People need to realize the very important differences between the various intoxicants; cannabis is much safer than alcohol.

Cite a reference here. Or are you talking from experience?

What makes marijuana dangerous is addicted dope smokers, perhaps like you, who justify their habits and encourage others to "join in the fun." Unfortunately, those others aren't consenting adults with some health education, but very often teenagers with problems in school ranging from truancy to academic challenges that only get compounded by the addiction to drugs.

Marijuana, specifically THC, is a drug. More damaging than tobacco, less damaging than crack.

SkinWalker
05-28-2003, 02:12 PM
As an answer from the argument that marijuana differs from tobacco becuase of the effect cannaboids have on the bronchial tubes, I concede that THC does, indeed, open the bronchial tubes rather than constrict them. However:

To compare the pulmonary hazards of smoking marijuana and tobacco, we quantified the relative burden to the lung of insoluble particulates (tar) and carbon monoxide from the smoke of similar quantities of marijuana and tobacco. The 15 subjects, all men, had smoked both marijuana and tobacco habitually for at least five years. We measured each subject's blood carboxyhemoglobin level before and after smoking and the amount of tar inhaled and deposited in the respiratory tract from the smoke of single filter-tipped tobacco cigarettes (900 to 1200 mg) and marijuana cigarettes (741 to 985 mg) containing 0.004 percent or 1.24 percent delta 9-tetrahydrocanabinol. As compared with smoking tobacco, smoking marijuana was associated with a nearly fivefold greater increment in the blood carboxyhemoglobin level, an approximately threefold increase in the amount of tar inhaled, and retention in the respiratory tract of one third more inhaled tar (P less than 0.001). Significant differences were also noted in the dynamics of smoking marijuana and tobacco, among them an approximately two-thirds larger puff volume, a one-third greater depth of inhalation, and a fourfold longer breath-holding time with marijuana than with tobacco (P less than 0.01). Smoking dynamics and the delivery of tar during marijuana smoking were only slightly influenced by the percentage of tetrahydrocanabinol. We conclude that smoking marijuana, regardless of tetrahydrocannabinol content, results in a substantially greater respiratory burden of carbon monoxide and tar than smoking a similar quantity of tobacco.

Source:
Wu TC_; Tashkin DP_; Djahed B_; Rose JE._Pulmonary hazards of smoking marijuana as compared with tobacco. N Engl J Med (The New England journal of medicine.) 1988 Feb 11; 318(6): 347-51

munik
05-29-2003, 01:23 AM
Skin, the differences between the tobacco and marijuana cigarettes should be noted in that test. While the marijuana cig was smaller then the tobacco, I'm willing to bet a limb that no one smokes enough marijuana cigs to compare to a cigarette smoker. I've smoked tobacco for quite some time, maybe around 8 years. While I do notice that I don't have the lung capacity that I did before, that is about all the negative effects I notice. Sure, my lungs might be blacker'n a woodchucks *******, and I could have 14 lbs. worth of cancer in my body, but I don't notice them. I couldn't smoke as much marijuana as I have tobacco in 10 lifetimes. My point, as I know personal experience isn't gonna cut it here, is that saying marijuana is more dangerous then tobacco doesn't really mean too much. Nobody is going to smoke marijuana anywhere near the amount of tobacco that people smoke.

Also, that test felt the need to point out that marijuana smokers inhale deeper, inhale more, and hold it in longer then tobacco smokers. The test failed to point out that the subjects were probaly juvenile tards. You can smoke a joint like a normal person and get equally stoned, you don't have to smoke like you're still in highschool. I think that the whole reason that someone would smoke like that is because pot doesn't usally come cheap, or in large quantities. So they get as much use out of it as they can. This mentality would probaly be eliminated if weed was legal.

I'd like to answer the question on what is responsible use. I believe it would be to not act like a fool, simply put. Don't infringe on others, don't do anything stupid like driving where you put others in danger because of your lessened abilities. Don't call in to work days at a time because you get stoned all the time, don't show up to work stoned, things like that. It doesn't matter if you can maintain, you still shouldn't do stuff like that, because if something bad was to happen the blame would fall upon the pot.

Your physical addiction statement is off a bit, I think. While I am no expert on what causes physical addiction, I believe it is because some drugs inhibit the production of certain "things", which the drug replaces with itself. Since your body stopped producing this "thing", you are physically dependant on the drug. Now, if a drug was to increase levels of a "thing", then your body might adjust to it and become dependant, where if you removed the drug you would lower levels of the "thing" which in turn might cause withdrawals. I don't believe the increase of dopamine and other "things" caused by marijuana would cause the body to become dependant on it. Your body acts pretty much normal with increased levels, pretty much normal with less levels. My theory on it. I like your methadone comparision, but I don't think the residuals of marijuana left in the fat cells effect the levels of "things" that are effected with the initial consumption. (I use "things" here as a replacement for a word or word I just can't think of, but I hope you get my drift)

Quick note on marijuana as medicine. While there may be alternatives that do the same thing, are they free? Can you produce them on your own, at your residence? Ease and simplicity, as well as cost, would make marijuana a better alternative.

munik
05-29-2003, 03:35 AM
Originally posted by SkinWalker
We don't need a third, legal but dangerous and problematic drug. Even if it's to make a stand. Keep it illegal so people will keep it on the down low. They don't bother me.... I don't bother them.There are more then two legal drugs that are dangerous, and possibly problematic depending on what's considered a problem. The thing is that the recreational use of those other legal drugs are kept on the down low. They have useful purposes, so if they were to be demonized then we would lose the benefits of them. But you can't use the benefits of marijuana to redeem the recreational use. It's a one way street here, unjustly so in my opinion.

STTCT
05-29-2003, 12:20 PM
my thoughts....

leave things the way they are. if you want something bad enough you'll get it. it isn't like its impossible to get a hold of. i think they should leave it illegal for the sole purpose of keeping the pot-smoking away from children. you start legalizing it and people will really start coming out of the closet and selling it more to children. Yes I know that happens now...but if you legalize it the stuff is just going to be more readily available than it already is.