Is pot smoking evil?!

[Darunia]

As hazardous as this shit is, does anyone REALLY have the right to tell them they can't do it to themselves? It's close to the suicide argument in that respect.

[alien space marine]

Originally posted by Darunia
As hazardous as this shit is, does anyone REALLY have the right to tell them they can't do it to themselves? It's close to the suicide argument in that respect.

They were only 16 and even as young as 8.

Gasoline wont kill you unless you drink large quantities of it.

Secondly these kids were neglected by their parents and lived in slums.

[Sacred Jellybean]

a very sad sight indeed.

http://www.northernalliance.ca/gas_...es/image002.jpg


This kids sniffs gasoline 24/7 , a hole gang of them are addicted to it even despite goverment attempts to detox them.

All of them suffer from brain damage from breathing powerful chemicals on a daily basis.

Sure we could say its their right to poison themselves , but that would be careless of us ,atleast out of 50 kids , 2 were rehebilitated.

What idiots. And to think, this might not have happened if weed were accessible to these children! Smoking weed certainly isn't as destructive as inhaling fumes. This is in jest, though, as I don't condone children using any potentially addictive and destructive substances. It should be up to the parents to stop this, though, not the government. I don't think my freedom to be responsible for my own body should be taken away so the parents of children have to do less work.

[alien space marine]

Originally posted by Sacred Jellybean
What idiots. And to think, this might not have happened if weed were accessible to these children! Smoking weed certainly isn't as destructive as inhaling fumes. This is in jest, though, as I don't condone children using any potentially addictive and destructive substances. It should be up to the parents to stop this, though, not the government. I don't think my freedom to be responsible for my own body should be taken away so the parents of children have to do less work.

The problem with these kids is that there parents abused heavy drugs themselves and neglected their own kids.
It waisnt just the goverment that intervened it was the tribal first nations inuit council of elders.

Now this thread started out as marijuna but I thought it would be appropiate to show other addictions.

[A Black Falcon]

Maine's expanding its antismoking in stores law to include bars... up to now any bar who doesn't let people under 21 in could allow cigaretts (as opposed to restaurants, where it isn't allowed anywhere), but not anymore. Now just private clubs and the like can allow it... which is great! The more they restrict it the better.

[Dark Lord Neo]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Maine's expanding its antismoking in stores law to include bars... up to now any bar who doesn't let people under 21 in could allow cigaretts (as opposed to restaurants, where it isn't allowed anywhere), but not anymore. Now just private clubs and the like can allow it... which is great! The more they restrict it the better.

Way to go main, they just need to ban it in private clubs too

[alien space marine]

Maine is my neighbor , its a fucking shit hole.

[Dark Lord Neo]

Originally posted by alien space marine
Maine is my neighbor , its a fucking shit hole.

and New Brunswick isn't?

[alien space marine]

No were alot better off , they are way poorer then us on average.

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Sniffing gas is like sniffing paint, or butane, or something... all it does is kill your brain cells. If you do it enough you will end up severely mentally retarded. Quite literally.

As for Marx, I've said it before -- his ideas sound great and would be perfect if not for human nature. I know you are selfish and don't want anyone being equal, but the whole POINT of my argument is that that is EXACTLY what is stopping it from working -- and if people were perfect no one would feel that way!

So it was funny before when your posts in rebuttal to mine just proved my point better. :)

Well, not exactly. See, the reason I don't want everyone equal is that not everyone deserves to be equal. Some people just have natural superiority over others, some being smarter, stronger, faster, more willing to work, or what have you. You could in theory force everyone to be equal but those natural deviances in intelligence and physical prowess would defeat it. It was Karl Marx's idea to make everyone a peasant worker, and to eliminate the hated intellectual, which is an incredibly terrible thing to do. His ideas might have been done in good faith but the fact is, in application and in simple theory they completely suck, partly because inequality is part of human nature, and the flaws in the communist idea itself, that everyone should be equally poor as opposed to equally wealthy. If you want to make a socially equal plane, it would be far more beneficial to strive to make EVERYONE intellectual instead of making everyone a virtual slave drone like Marx envisioned.

Marx's communism, if it matched his vision, would reduce humanity to nothing more than a large ant colony, sans queen, and would rob everyone of their property, sovereignty, and even basic individualism, and of course that would lead to a huge, stagnant culture that would be so fragile that the slightest deviation could bring it down.

If that's Marx's idea of perfect, I'll continue to be a flawed human being and enjoy it's many benefits. Communism is a terrible idea in practice, and a terrible idea in theory, and thank God we're too flawed for it to work :)

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Maine's expanding its antismoking in stores law to include bars... up to now any bar who doesn't let people under 21 in could allow cigaretts (as opposed to restaurants, where it isn't allowed anywhere), but not anymore. Now just private clubs and the like can allow it... which is great! The more they restrict it the better.

Yes, I want more government restriction over my life! Way to go, totalitarianism! Nothing better than losing my rights because a small minority of people are offended!

Here's a better alternative: If the smoke bothers you, DON'T GO WHERE PEOPLE SMOKE.

Like I said, I can't stand smoking, but that doesn't mean I want to infringe upon others' enjoyment. It doesn't bother me THAT much.

[Sacred Jellybean]

Yes, I want more government restriction over my life! Way to go, totalitarianism! Nothing better than losing my rights because a small minority of people are offended!

Here's a better alternative: If the smoke bothers you, DON'T GO WHERE PEOPLE SMOKE.

Like I said, I can't stand smoking, but that doesn't mean I want to infringe upon others' enjoyment. It doesn't bother me THAT much.

Agreed. I actually used to be for stricter tobacco laws when I was younger, mostly because of influence from my mother, but I definitely agree with this (I thought I'd point that out, as me agreeing with Weltaii doesn't happen very often in these arguments ;)). Who am I to tell another person what he/she can do to his/her body when and where? Smoking may be obnoxious to some, but segregation takes care of that.

I remember that my mom used to make this analogy that she read somewhere, "Well, that's just like having 'Peeing' and 'No Peeing' sections in the public swimming pools." That's silly, though... only anti-smoking zealots are offended by the notion that somewhere, someplace nearby, someone is enjoying a cigarette.

Maine's expanding its antismoking in stores law to include bars... up to now any bar who doesn't let people under 21 in could allow cigaretts (as opposed to restaurants, where it isn't allowed anywhere), but not anymore. Now just private clubs and the like can allow it... which is great! The more they restrict it the better.

It should be up to the establishment whether smoking should be allowed inside or not, not the government. IMO, the most the government should be able to do is force the implementation of smoking segregation in *public* establishments.

[alien space marine]

Originally posted by Sacred Jellybean
Agreed. I actually used to be for stricter tobacco laws when I was younger, mostly because of influence from my mother, but I definitely agree with this (I thought I'd point that out, as me agreeing with Weltaii doesn't happen very often in these arguments ;)). Who am I to tell another person what he/she can do to his/her body when and where? Smoking may be obnoxious to some, but segregation takes care of that.

I remember that my mom used to make this analogy that she read somewhere, "Well, that's just like having 'Peeing' and 'No Peeing' sections in the public swimming pools." That's silly, though... only anti-smoking zealots are offended by the notion that somewhere, someplace nearby, someone is enjoying a cigarette.



It should be up to the establishment whether smoking should be allowed inside or not, not the government. IMO, the most the government should be able to do is force the implementation of smoking segregation in *public* establishments.

We used to have it that way in our town , At a Tim hortons ( donut shop) They seperated smokers and the nonsmokers with a glass room to keep the smoke inside the smoking area, it was a good idea at first,The problem was that circulation inside the glass containers were pretty bad for the smokers themselves unlike a open area the smoke kind of stayed in one spot and accumulated , I used to get a kick and look at how yellow the smoking room was compared to the rest of the place.

Some shops had the smoking located were you had to go to washroom so you had no choice but to suck in that shit to go for a pee.
But all those segregated boxed in smoking rooms costed the stores extra money in sanitation and they had to be constantly renivated, So they decided to ban smoking in public all togther.

[Fittisize]

Smoking should only be done only with those who don't mind it at all. It should not be done in public at ALL.

[Sacred Jellybean]

Two-and-a-half-years? Aw, hell no. I've refined my self-confidence and debate skills since then (I'm the president of my school's chapter of NORML - National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws :)), so I'll revive this topic (especially since there's been a frenzy of topic-revival going on in the past week). It randomly crossed my mind, so I decided to look at it again. Be prepared for a monolith of a post that's usually unlike me (since it's a topic that interests me; unfortunately, my interest in video games has waned in the past few years). Sorry for replying to posts from so long ago, as your viewpoints may very well have changed, but I saw some things that couldn’t go unanswered.

I know Jean Cretin is pretty stupid even for a commie lib, but the logic of this makes no sense to me. Decrease the drug problem by making them legal? Wow hey, great logic. You know, if you inject cyanide into someone's veins, their malignant cancer or HIV won't be bothering them very long either!

To me, "drug problem" encapsulates more than just the damage caused to the user. I won't argue about the legalization of all drugs, because I'm still quite ambivalent on the subject, but there's clearly a problem wrong with the policy of locking up non-violent drug offenders. Most drugs are linked to crime because they exist in the black market. Addiction is also certainly a problem with hard drugs, such as heroin, cocaine, and crystal meth, and I could see how theft and armed robbery is an issue with that. I think that's the extent of the argument I agree with, though. With controlled dosages, over-dosages would be a thing of the past, unless proper administration was circumvented. Purity would also no longer be a problem, as the FDA would treat these substances like our currently legal drugs. Also, if they were carefully regulated, a person could have a greater chance of intervention if the habit goes out of control. Of course, as a personal choice, I would never take a highly addictive drug. The libertarian in me says that drugs should be legal, but my compassion for fellow-man says otherwise.

Plus I dont see why the PM would want to take advice from people who smoke weed.

I know you're not around anymore, but you're an asshole. I shouldn't have expected more from you. "OMG HE USES POT HE MUST BE A BURNOUT LOSER DUMMIEEIEEE!!!!11`1" As a regular cannabis smoker of more than 3 years, I resent that, you fucking idiot. I'd be more willing to take advice from a flower child who's lost his mind from taking too much lsd than you, buddy.

This new bill was not needed as pot isnt a problem , I like that anti drug abuse ad in the U.S were a kid shoots himself dead being so high on weed thought the gun was a cap gun.

What a stupid ad. Kids shouldn't be smoking to begin with. I don't see how anyone could be high enough to willingly shoot himself with a gun, unless an emotional disorder (say, clinical depression) were exacerbated while under the effects of cannabis (in which case, he shouldn't be taking drugs that adversely affect his condition to begin with). The ad was clearly created by people who have minimal (if any at all) experience with marijuana.

Jean Chreitian undoubtly smokes weed , why else do such absurdity.

Unfortunately, you can't blame drugs on your lack of grammar and logic.

Alcohol in my opinion is far more dangerous and destructive than tobacco, and it's funny how not only does the government ignore alcohol, it also is sympathetic to weed, both being substances that can rob you of your cognitive ability and can impair your ability to operate a vehicle or even walk straight

Don't be so quick to put alcohol and grass into the same category. It's easy for me to hide the fact that I'm high, but it's typically easy to spot a drunkard within seconds of witnessing him.

Actually, I'm in favor of making illegal drug trafficking a capital crime, as that practice is responsible for (wild guess) a good half of the murders in America. Our legal system needs to get it's priorities in check and start going after the root of the problem. In China, possession of weed carries a mandatory seven year sentence, and dealers of that and others are executed. For once, they have the right idea.

Wow. Just, wow. Not only does that reek of (willful?) ignorance of the Temperance era, but it completely lacks compassion. Drug addiction is a disease, not a crime. The massive failure known as the War on Drugs should tell you that harsh sentences don’t stop people from using substances. Legislating morality of actions that don’t harm others is quite difficult, and in the case of addictive substances, people don’t even care as long as they get a fix.

To be honest, my plan would just make it impossible to get a cig, not make it illegal . I just wanna know why they don't just all get on the patch. They get nicotine, and they don't HAVE to quit then, plus I don't have a single complaint. I think the main reason alcohol is still legal is because we all know just how well making it illegal went last time they tried it...

Maybe… because… people… enjoy it? I’m going out on a limb here. Fast food is also unhealthy, but people still eat it, either out of convenience or enjoyment.

As for Canada decriminalizing marijuana, its not a good step... for one it'll mean it will be far easier to get it into the US -- like we needed a bigger drug problem! And for Canada, while it'll lead to less crime because of drug lords, probably, it will also increase the number of addicted people... NOT A GOOD THING!

A common misconception not supported by facts. Marijuana is sold in small amounts in Amsterdam, and if I correctly recall, they have LESS of a percentage of people who smoke cannabis (at least a smaller percentage of teens – I’ll find a reference, if you wish).

"Truth is I refuse to have my tax dollars go to Rehab fucks who dont take care of themselves".

Truth is, you’re already having your tax dollars wasting money on locking people up for a drug that’s hardly even a social hazard.

I was on medicated Morphiene(i dont think I spelled that right).

I can say it is pretty easy to be a heartless killer when your high on that stuff, Your concious is gone for a short period.
I was glad to be off that after my surgerey as I was going nuts.

Good thing we're not talking about morphine!

But the people who I know who smoke weed are always lazy bastards who are unproductive ,Though I find it amusing to hear their stories about how stoned they were. They always seem sluggish and dead afterwards.Alot of people I know who do weed have also tried Coke and acid, I just feel Marayuna is just the key to further more serious things.

There was a 12 year old boy in our town who broke into houses to steal VCRS and Tvs so he could get enough money to buy some more Pot to feed is drug habbait.

Ive seen tons of freinds steal school equipement to pay off some buddy who gave them that gram of good weed the other night.

Good thing anecdotal evidence is hardly pragmatic or empirical. The gateway and amotivational myths have never been proven by sound science. Your friends sound like idiots (they’re also minors using drugs, something I don’t condone). I can counter that with the same amount of credence with the fact that I’ve never met a single person (and this is out of dozens of potheads) who have stolen to support their habits.

But unlike weed it isnt potent in such tiny doses.

What about tequila, vodka, rum, everclear, etc? What about schwag (low-potency weed) or middies (moderate-potency weed)? Why am I even replying to this?

Weed stays in your system and effect you even days after you last toked up, were as beer wares off the next day.

THC metabolites stay in your system days after you’ve smoked. The high from cannabis typically only lasts a couple hours max (depending on dosage, potency, etc, of course).

Well I have no personal experience with alchohol (I turn 21 in 2 1/2 months, but have no intention of drinking anytime soon), tobacco, or marijuana... and plan to keep it that way. I don't see why people would do those things... all it does is make you stupider and/or kill you...

…are you serious? Really? Ooookay… people like to alter their consciousnesses for a variety of reasons, most among them are relaxation and curiosity. I’m hoping that was rhetorical, though. Pot doesn’t make you more stupid (haha, I love irony) unless heavily abused (being high every minute of every day) OR kill you.

If you just ate jars full of salt that could kill you if you overdose on it . There is no such thing as recreational or Casual Marijuna you do have a dependency on it.When ever somthing goes bad you go to the drugs , You have a hard addiction you should'nt be a fool to underestimate it.

Ah, I can’t even address this type of ignorance from a poster who no longer visits.

There's this guy in our town who used to be smart, but then he spent lots of time sniffing paint and basically blew out his mind... he's still around but is stupid and can't hold a job or an apartment because of how he is... its sad, but it IS his own fault...

That holds no relevance to marijuana, but it is indeed sad. Some people are just plain stupid. Research the things you put into your bodies, folks.

Is smoking marijuana evil? Not at all. Is it monumentally stupid? In every conceivable way. I can't come up with a single reason why I'd want to injest something which could potentially be dangerous to myself and others.

That’s too bad, buddy. I think people who don’t smoke weed are missing out on a very relaxing, amusing, and spiritually-fulfilling hobby. Of course, I don’t get up on a high horse and call them stupid.

I'd rather play Melee. Lets do a comparison, shall we? Try and stay with me, potheads, I'll speak slowly.

There’s that self-righteous and misguided “OMG ALL POTHEADS ARE RETARDS” bullshit again. How about this – I respect your standpoint, and as long as I'm giving thoughtful and reasonable arguments, you respect mine. 'Kay?

Super Smash Bros. Melee: One time cost, then you can enjoy it anytime you wish.

Admittedly, you’ve got me there. But don’t forget about sequels!

You can enjoy it with friends or alone

You can do that with marijuana.

, and best of all, if a cop pulls you over and you've got a copy of Melee, you won't get punished (unless the cop is a PS2 or XBox fanboy)

This is a problem with the law, not the hobby. What if the shoe were on the other foot and video games were illegal? What if there were unrealistic commercials depicting people sitting on their couches like zombies, playing round after round of Melee, ignoring their health? Well, I guess you’d be as dumb as me smoking weed for not being a good little drone who believes every single thing our government tells us! I’m not a huge conspiracy theorist, btw, but with marijuana policy, our government is FAR off the mark.

and when you get addicted, it adds up.

Ahh, don’t you love that? When you get addicted. You clearly have no experience with marijuana, aside from bullshit from D.A.R.E. and concerned parents. Allow me to make this nice and sparkingly clear – clear as an azure sky of deepest summer, clear as an unmuddled lake – POT IS NOT LIKE HEROIN. You do NOT get addicted from a single puff; not even close. However, I digress. It’s my choice what I spend my money on, just like it’s a fashion-freak’s choice to “waste” money on 20 wardrobes, and a gamer’s choice to “waste” money on video games, and a spectator's choice to "waste" money on attending sporting events.

What kills you is the stupid shit you think you can do when you're high on it, like drive.

Nope, can’t let this one go. Weed doesn’t make you do stupid things, like alcohol. Pot tends to increase caution and introspection from my experience, and if you take a look at the scientific abstracts or youtube video on driving with marijuana that I list further down the post, you’ll see some evidence on that. I have made the conscious choice to not drive when I was too high, even when peer-pressure was an issue. I have smoked and driven, and have had problems with it less than %2 of the time.

So if you want to smoke pot, you go right ahead. I think of it as weeding out the weak and stupid.

Stereotyping of cannabis smokers does nothing better than reveal the author’s ignorance on the subject. This is probably why I didn’t even bother responding to this before. Jackass.

Don't take all of this too personally, Eden. I still respect you, but if you really believe all this, then I simply cannot respect those particular beliefs. They reek of opinionated ignorance. It'd be one thing if you knew what you were talking about...

Marijuana may be slightly less evil than other drugs because it doesn't kill you directly. Oh joy. That is such a great endorsement! Its slightly less bad for you !

It doesn’t kill you in any way. Marijuana is not life-threatening itself. Nope, it doesn’t cause cancer. In fact, there's a NEGATIVE correlation with incidence of cancer (once again, I'll dig up a link if you desire).

Thing about pot is that you're still SMOKING it, and thus all the bad effects of smoke in your lungs are there, thus pot can still kill you using one of the ways cigarette smoking kills people.

Incorrect. As a completely different species of plant, the smoke from combusted tobacco has different effects on the body. Marijuana can perhaps inflict irritation to bronchial tubes, but emphysema and cancer are not an issue.

Lots of things are "fun" that shouldn't be done. Drugs are one of those. Comparing it to sports? Uhh... sports don't slowly kill you... drugs do. Any drugs. They should all be either illegal or perscription...

Not so fast. Sports CAN be harmful. People who have heart problems can be damaged from participating in sports. Some contain flying projectiles. Hunting can be dangerous - just ask Dick Cheney! Football, Rugby, Boxing, and Hockey are considerably dangerous to even healthy and fit people. How about extreme sports, like sky-diving, skateboarding, etc.? And pot doesn’t slowly kill you. There was a woman in India (I’ll find the article if you want) that reportedly lived to be over one-hundred years old who smoked weed every day.

Amen.

Absolutely.

Drugs are for the weak-minded and the weak-willed

Reality is a crutch for people who can't cope with drugs.

I don't believe that per se, but it's a funny saying nonetheless. How can you make such a statement, though (perhaps you've gained some common sense in the past two-and-a-half years, or at least greater caution to use blanket statements)? Perhaps it could be applied to heroin, something I don't have experience with (and never want it). But marijuana is arguably less harmful than alcohol. I'll propose the same question comedian Bill Hicks proposed: You're at a ball game or concert, and someone's acting really rowdy, violent, loud, and obnoxious - are they high or drunk? Mankind has had an interest in altering his own consciousness for millenia. There sure are a lot of weak-minded and weak-willed people out there for wanting to experience a different and virtually harmless mindset!

Have you ever seen people under the influence of cannabis get into fights? Unless a person is crazy to begin with, I can't imagine him under any circumstances smoking a joint and beating his wife and kids. Alcohol is an intoxicant, in the true sense that it's a toxic substance to your body. Cannabis is non-toxic, and impossible to overdose on. It's LD-50 is estimated to be in a range that's substantially greater than the normal dosage, or even the couch-lock, giggly, incapacitated-because-you're-still-a-newb-and-smoked-way-too-much dosage. You'd sooner die from drinking too much water.

You ever drink too much and feel like complete trash the next morning? Yup, it happens to the best of us who have a few too many. Headaches, nausea, depression, lethargy. You know what typically happens after I smoke too much weed? ...when I go to sleep, I don't awaken for perhaps a few hours later. I got light "hangovers" when I first began smoking, in the sense that I became slightly depressed the day afterwards (and no, not because I didn't have any more pot, so no smart-ass remarks ). They recently passed a meaningless (I'll get into why that's so if anyone here's interested, but probably not) cannabis paraphernalia ban here in Philadelphia. Thank god they're trying to protect children from people who giggle, relax, binge eat, philosophize, and take copious naps! Boy, that deadly cotton-mouth would be the downfall of society if weed were suddenly legalized, let me tell ya.

This is true, and to anyone who wants a reference, I'll be glad to find one for you: cannabis is less physically addictive than alcohol, tobacco, and caffiene. Psychological addiction is another ball of wax, but I'd still say such is comparable to alcohol.

I'm not saying grass is harmless (notice, I used the word virtually before). Moderation is the key, and there are substances out there (alcohol and tobacco included) that are MUCH more difficult to moderate. Do you know what the biggest barrier to easily moderating marijuana is? The fact that it doesn't make your body and mind feel like shit. The fact that you normally don't have to apologize for your unruly behavior the next day. The worst thing that marijuana could do to you is exacerbate predisposed mental illnesses. There is a strong correlation between people with mental illnesses and people who smoke, but correlation is not causation, and I think any reasonable person can agree that those with mental illnesses are more prone feel desire to find a substance that soothes them from their mental turmoil than an emotionally stable person. Marijuana does lower sperm count (but still makes for a poor contraceptive, I'm sure), but that reverses when the user quits. A long-term, heavy user could perhaps experience permanent but insubstantial deficits in short-term memory after quitting, but again, moderation is the key. If that's the worst that could happen from smoking too much, why the hell isn't it alcohol that's illegal? (rhetorical question - it's obvious that cultural significance is the reason it's legal)

If cannabis were legal, not only would we be giving people a better choice in consciousness-altering substances (sorry, I can't bring myself to use the word "intoxicant"), but we'd stop wasting money on non-violent drug offenders, effectively taking a huge cash crop out of the hands of criminals and other members of the black market. Our national deficit is at 8.7 trillion dollars, and I think it's high time we not only infuse some common sense in a rigid and hypocritical drug policy, but help combat our debts. The economical benefits to cannabis legalization isn't even an original idea, either. Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate and all-around brilliant and well-respected economist, supported this idea in a Forbes article in 2005.

For those of you jumping to say "But Dan, if weed were legalized, more people would be toking up and driving killing people and it'd be a huge disaster! What if there are CHILDREN IN THE CAR?!!?"

(sorry to pigeon-hole anyone who would have brought up marijuana and driving, but this is a common and specious argument that appeals to emotions instead of logic)

There are laws in place for drugged driving, in case you haven't noticed. Simple tests given by the police officer should determine if a person is incapacitated to a degree in which operating a motor vehicle is unsafe. How does that contradict what substances should be prohibited? Now, while I absolutely do not condone altering one's consciousness while operating machinery that puts the lives of others at risk, I can tell you with 100% certainty that, given a pair of options that I *must* choose from, I would much rather take a ride with a high driver than a drunk driver (if they're on, roughly, the same level of dosage). I'll include the appropriate references:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-b...1&SRETRY=0

http://www.ukcia.org/research/driving.htm

And, in case your attention span is short:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfcRyruo91Y

Here's a few other myths that I'm willing to dispel, if anyone disagrees:

-Marijuana is a gate-way drug
-Marijuana kills brain cells
-Marijuana causes cancer and emphysema
-Marijuana is a drug without therapeutic value
-Marijuana today is much more potent and harmful than back it the 60s (my father, who has again taken to smoking since retirement on a bi-weekly basis, was there and has told me personally that this is bullshit)
-Marijuana causes amotivational syndrome (perhaps true to a small extent, but I doubt a greater threat than alcohol)

Whew! Okay, I'm done. Sorry for such a long post. I hope someone is passionate enough on this subject, be it a position of concurrence or discordance with my viewpoint, that they'll actually read through it. Hopefully, ultimately, someone will learn something (but being that this forum doesn't contain many drug-users, including alcohol which is most certainly a drug, that likely isn't the case).

[Fittisize]

That was the single greatest post in Tendo City history. I'm gonna go smoke a big fucking blunt to that.

Jesus take a bow, you deserve it for single-handedly owning every close-minded holier-than-thou asshole on this site who thinks that smoking weed is bad.

Fuck all you assholes who look down on somebody else because of their personal choices.

[Great Rumbler]

Smoking pot is evil.

Because:

Pot = Kettle

Kettle = For use in cooking

Cooking = Preperation of food

Preperation of food = Similar to making poision [if you're not good at it]

Food [and food that is poisoned] = Will be served at some point

Poison that is served to people = People die

People die = bad, or "evil" if it happened on purpose

And

Smoking = Fire

Fire = Something is burning

Something burning = Maybe house or car

House or car burning = People die

People die = Bad, or "evil" if it happened on purpose

Equals:

Smoking pot = Poisoning someone and then burning down their house and/or car.

So, if you smoke pot on purpose, then, yes, it's evil. I just proved that with science so it can't be refuted EVER!

[Dark Jaguar]

Eh, this childish question again... Yeah this is right up there on my "I really just don't care list" with "why can I go to war but I can't drink?", which is something a person cares about for exactly 3 years and then never again. Suck it up, on both accounts. (Not literally.)

[Sacred Jellybean]

That was the single greatest post in Tendo City history. I'm gonna go smoke a big fucking blunt to that.

Jesus take a bow, you deserve it for single-handedly owning every close-minded holier-than-thou asshole on this site who thinks that smoking weed is bad.

Fuck all you assholes who look down on somebody else because of their personal choices.

I'm glad someone else here is sane.

Eh, this childish question again... Yeah this is right up there on my "I really just don't care list" with "why can I go to war but I can't drink?", which is something a person cares about for exactly 3 years and then never again. Suck it up, on both accounts. (Not literally.)

And why, pray tell, is this a childish question? Fighting for liberty and pursuit of happiness, though involving something that isn't a necessity for survival, is far from childish. Maybe this doesn't affect you, but that's no reason to minimize the issue. There's clearly a substantial portion of people who disagree with these laws (last I heard, around 33% agreed with taxing and regulating cannabis like alcohol).

I'm sure you feel passionate about stopping people like Jack Thompson, DJ, because it affects a hobby that you partake in. But suddenly, if someone wishes to pursue another hobby of altering his consciousness, it becomes "childish". I'm sure I could find many, many people (outside our age group, of course) who agree that playing video games is "childish". What makes your hobby any less childish than mine?

[Weltall]

Well, if it matters, my views on the subject have obviously softened in four years.

[Dark Jaguar]

Touched a nerve I think! :D

"Altering conciousness", right. The brain is malfunctioning as you are applying doses you aren't even properly measuring out, nor do you know the actual effect it may produce. No scientific rigor is being applied in this attempt to mess with your BRAIN, the very seat of what makes you you. That's what makes it more childish. I'm sure you are feeling some odd emotions as parts of your brain are triggered to fire in an uncontrolled manner, including the inhibition center of your brain, but this isn't some path to "other ways of knowing", because only empiricism works.

No offense intended really. Honestly, if you want to do certain things to your body, so long as you stay inside and don't operate heavy machinery while the chemicals are in effect, it's fine I suppose. However, when someone goes as far as to suggest completely baseless assertions about it being a path to enlightenment or the key to some weird awareness, or other woo nonsense, that's when I remember that all scientific evidence has shown is that people just sit around with overactive imaginations and certain parts of the brain, such as the sections that allow us to categorize the world around us and mentally create concepts like distinct objects vanish, so you get vapid statements like "I am you, we are all part of everything and it's all seamless MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA *cough* AAAAAAAN". It's just a chemical rush, nothing more.

And here's a gem, "don't knock it until you've tried it". Well I can collect sufficient evidence WITHOUT actually trying something to conclude I want no part of it. This is obviously not the same thing, and I in no way am attempting to say that it is as bad or in the same category, but for the purposes of this analogy it works: I can determine just fine from empirical observation the effects of having an arm removed to conclude that I don't want to have anything to do with it. I need not try it to find out if it is "right for me" or whatever nonsense they pass off as "empowerment of the individual" in commercials these days.

In short I'm a cynical bitter shell of a human being who's heart has turned to black coal long ago. Except I'm not and in general am pretty happy go lucky carefree. It's just that things like that anger up the blood for me, in the same way the odd drug law does so for you.

I'll at least note that drug control is certainly a fairly recent development in American history. From the history I've seen and read, it was due to problems with really hard stuff being abused by "Pop" sitting on top of his "His" bed on the other end of the room from his wife using one of those solid metal massive syrenges. It started really causing problems and to prevent an epidemic, laws got passed.

As for what it SHOULD be, well, I just don't care enough to actually give an opinion here. I don't give it much thought and honestly you don't seem to be hindered by it, going by what you are saying.

[Sacred Jellybean]

The brain is malfunctioning as you are applying doses you aren't even properly measuring out, nor do you know the actual effect it may produce.

Well, that's funny... people have been consuming cannabis for millennia, but users still don't have a way of properly measuring it out, or knowing the actual effects it produces. ...huh? I honestly expected you to present a more challenging argument, DJ...

No scientific rigor is being applied in this attempt to mess with your BRAIN, the very seat of what makes you you.

From http://www.mikuriya.com/cw_depend.html :

The complex interplay of cannabis use with physiology and psychology challenges research. Outcomes are combinations of pharmacology, expectations, setting, personal and social forces. The contemporary ambiguity, a product of ignorance from deprivation of contemporary clinical experience, may be somewhat assuaged by two facts: Firstly, cannabis has been used for millennia by numerous cultures without serious adverse consequences. Secondly, neither the composition of cannabis nor the physiology of humans have changed since the drug was taken from the armementarium of medicine.

That's what makes it more childish. I'm sure you are feeling some odd emotions as parts of your brain are triggered to fire in an uncontrolled manner, including the inhibition center of your brain, but this isn't some path to "other ways of knowing", because only empiricism works.

Cannabis doesn't inhibit the pathways of neural networks, though. Alcohol and tobacco do, as far as I know, but not cannabis.

[Sacred Jellybean]

Well, if it matters, my views on the subject have obviously softened in four years.

I figured as much, but it all felt good to type out anyway. :)

[Dark Jaguar]

It dosen't inhibit the pathways, it excistes them, but there are specific pathways in the brain that are meant to inhibit things, and if they get overexcited, it results IN inhibitions. Just like how when people get drunk, it inhitibs the pathways in the inhibition center, lowering inhibitions. It's all wonderfully circuitis.

Anyway, I mean that you PERSONALLY have no idea what you are doing. Scientists know just fine.

[Sacred Jellybean]

It dosen't inhibit the pathways, it excistes them, but there are specific pathways in the brain that are meant to inhibit things, and if they get overexcited, it results IN inhibitions. Just like how when people get drunk, it inhitibs the pathways in the inhibition center, lowering inhibitions. It's all wonderfully circuitis.

Fair enough, but if this doesn't permanently alter my brain chemistry to a point where my personality changes, intelligence lowers, etc., then where's the harm? My personality, or what makes me ME as you put it, hasn't changed dramatically or at all negatively since taking up cannabis as a hobby. Maybe your policy of how you treat your own body differs from mine, but that doesn't mean I should be restricting from having my own policy. That'd be just as bad as if someone forced you to smoke cannabis.

Anyway, I mean that you PERSONALLY have no idea what you are doing. Scientists know just fine.

I don't have a strong grasp on how caffeine or nicotine affect my brain chemistry, but that doesn't make me run screaming in the other direction when someone offers me a smoke or asks if I'd like a small coffee with my donut.

[Sacred Jellybean]

No offense intended really. Honestly, if you want to do certain things to your body, so long as you stay inside and don't operate heavy machinery while the chemicals are in effect, it's fine I suppose.

I agree on the point of not operating heavy machinery, but I don't see any reason to have to stay inside. What if my cupboards are empty and I have the munchies? ;) I can easily walk to a diner, order food, etc. without disturbing or harming myself or anyone else.

However, when someone goes as far as to suggest completely baseless assertions about it being a path to enlightenment or the key to some weird awareness, or other woo nonsense, that's when I remember that all scientific evidence has shown is that people just sit around with overactive imaginations and certain parts of the brain, such as the sections that allow us to categorize the world around us and mentally create concepts like distinct objects vanish, so you get vapid statements like "I am you, we are all part of everything and it's all seamless MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA *cough* AAAAAAAN". It's just a chemical rush, nothing more.

I never suggested this (although I never said I did, to be fair). On the other hand, altering the way your brain thinks *does* allow you to look at things in new ways. I'm not suggesting that grass will enlighten a man, but it will allow him to see things differently. Whether that's useful varies on a case-by-case basis, obviously.

And here's a gem, "don't knock it until you've tried it". Well I can collect sufficient evidence WITHOUT actually trying something to conclude I want no part of it. This is obviously not the same thing, and I in no way am attempting to say that it is as bad or in the same category, but for the purposes of this analogy it works: I can determine just fine from empirical observation the effects of having an arm removed to conclude that I don't want to have anything to do with it. I need not try it to find out if it is "right for me" or whatever nonsense they pass off as "empowerment of the individual" in commercials these days.

Agreed - to each, his own. The problem is, people accept propaganda as conclusions drawn from sound scientific evidence, which simply isn't true in many cases.

As for what it SHOULD be, well, I just don't care enough to actually give an opinion here. I don't give it much thought and honestly you don't seem to be hindered by it, going by what you are saying.

Nope. We'll likely not change each others' opinions, so I think we'll end in a stalemate regardless of how we pursue the debate. :)

[Dark Jaguar]

Fair enough, but if this doesn't permanently alter my brain chemistry to a point where my personality changes, intelligence lowers, etc., then where's the harm? My personality, or what makes me ME as you put it, hasn't changed dramatically or at all negatively since taking up cannabis as a hobby. Maybe your policy of how you treat your own body differs from mine, but that doesn't mean I should be restricting from having my own policy. That'd be just as bad as if someone forced you to smoke cannabis.



I don't have a strong grasp on how caffeine or nicotine affect my brain chemistry, but that doesn't make me run screaming in the other direction when someone offers me a smoke or asks if I'd like a small coffee with my donut.

I hardly "run screaming in the other direction". Is that how you view people who are clean of the stuff, as a bunch of tightwads who don't know how to have a good time? In fact, in the one occasion I have been offered the stuff, I simply politely declined. I will add that the person who offered it was also polite and respected that.

I actually don't smoke nicotine either, and it's beyond me why anyone who grew up in the era where pictures of horribly blackened lungs were routinely given to children as birthday presents would actually want to take up that habbit.

As for caffiene, I usually don't bother with it (in fact I only get the stuff with cocoa at this point, as I hate the taste of everything else with that in there now). I've noticed that some people "can't wake up without their morning joe", which is odd because I'm pretty sure they used to wake up just fine until they got addicted to the stuff. Mind you, that stuff actually is specifically measured out into the drinks it's put in, though for flavor rather than for full effect and it's by drink companies and not medicine companies.

Anyway, not once here have I said there SHOULD be a law, just that I don't much care about forming an opinion on the actual law, and that it's stupid to smoke the stuff. In fact I specifically said what you do to your own body, save if it endangers others, is your own business. That said, I'm free to openly criticize your choice and say your "body policy" or whatever you call it is not very healthy. I mean it's still smoke we are talking about here. It can still cause lung cancer if nothing else, and it isn't nothing else, as it does cause memory issues. But, your choice. You won't die from it, and the smoke is actually less likely to kill you than tobacco, so hey, you've got that going for you.

But seriously, everyone's got some vice or another. lazy's is obvious, I lack basic empathy, you know the usual.

[EdenMaster]

Rest assured, Beanjo, that I will read your epic post in it's entirety when I have a day or so free.

However, I did read you responses to my post and, though I feel it unfair to use someones three-year-old words against them (pfft, what am I saying, in politics, that's nothing), I will say that my view on the use of marijuana has not changed much. I still have no desire to smoke it, nor will you change my mind, I'm afraid. I've no interest, so waste not your energy.

That being said, what <i>has</i> changed is my viewpoint on those who do choose to partake. I do not feel these people are less than me, stupid, or anything of the like I may have felt those years ago. I've grown more tolerant of others in my wise old age, and if that is how you choose to enjoy yourself then by all means enjoy, my views on your hobby are irrelevant, as yours may be to mine.

Let us agree to disagree, my friend. I still respect you as well :).

[A Black Falcon]

Well, if it matters, my views on the subject have obviously softened in four years.

Mine haven't. :)

That being said, what has changed is my viewpoint on those who do choose to partake. I do not feel these people are less than me, stupid, or anything of the like I may have felt those years ago. I've grown more tolerant of others in my wise old age, and if that is how you choose to enjoy yourself then by all means enjoy, my views on your hobby are irrelevant, as yours may be to mine.

Intelligent people can make bad choices, certainly, but it doesn't make the choices any less bad.

As for caffiene, I usually don't bother with it (in fact I only get the stuff with cocoa at this point, as I hate the taste of everything else with that in there now). I've noticed that some people "can't wake up without their morning joe", which is odd because I'm pretty sure they used to wake up just fine until they got addicted to the stuff. Mind you, that stuff actually is specifically measured out into the drinks it's put in, though for flavor rather than for full effect and it's by drink companies and not medicine companies.

Anyway, not once here have I said there SHOULD be a law, just that I don't much care about forming an opinion on the actual law, and that it's stupid to smoke the stuff. In fact I specifically said what you do to your own body, save if it endangers others, is your own business. That said, I'm free to openly criticize your choice and say your "body policy" or whatever you call it is not very healthy. I mean it's still smoke we are talking about here. It can still cause lung cancer if nothing else, and it isn't nothing else, as it does cause memory issues. But, your choice. You won't die from it, and the smoke is actually less likely to kill you than tobacco, so hey, you've got that going for you.

I drink caffinated sodas like Coke sometimes, but don't drink coffee or tea. Even though it's not really bad for you, I'd rather not be addicted to caffeine... (and yes, you are right -- for a while the caffeine helps people wake up, but then they just need it to feel normal... like with any drug, the effect lessens with time but the dependence doesn't unless you break the habit.)

As for the second paragraph... if it affects others (like secondhand cigarette smoke -- I should never have to smell that stuff and have it get in my system! Or even more obviously, drunk driving.) then it is wrong. If you're only hurting yourself it is a somewhat less clear picture, but I do think society has a responsibility to keep people from hurting themselves too much, and this includes efforts like trying to get people off of drugs, suicide prevention efforts, etc. These are good things.

Yes, I know that marijuana 'isn't as bad' as harder drugs. This just isn't that relevant, really. Less bad is still bad!

[etoven]

Let me pose this question SJ....

You say you drove stoned off your ass with no insident while high on marijuana.

How the hell do you know your drive was with out incident? You where stoned off your ass being stupid!

You could have murdered fifty people and not realized it cause you where stoned off your ass. Not to mention that being stoned certainly does nothing for the reflexes, timing, coordination, reaction time all crucial to driving. No doubt you ran several red lights and almost caused numerous traffic accidents and didn't realize it. You probably didn't hear anything about it or assume it was without incident, because there where enough clear headed drivers out that night to get the hell out of your way.

I'm staying the hell off the road when your pot head ass comes driving by!

You say you where clear headed while smoking pot. But You where high as well Your senses where also imparted. I did need the personal experiences of person in a drug induced state, I will not and can not except that as evidence to the contrary. I choose to rely on empirical evidence, the facts of pot smoking are in abundance.

Marijuana Dangers


Marijuana has many dangers; through both immediate effects and damage to health over time.

Marijuana hinders the user's short-term memory (memory for recent events), and he or she may have trouble handling complex tasks. With the use of more potent varieties of marijuana, even simple tasks can be difficult.

Because of the drug's effects on perceptions and reaction time, users could be involved in auto crashes. Drug users also may become involved in risky sexual behavior. There is a strong link between drug use and unsafe sex and the spread of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Under the influence of marijuana, students may find it hard to study and learn. Young athletes could find their performance is off; timing, movements, and coordination are all affected by THC.

Marijuana affects many skills required for safe driving: alertness, the ability to concentrate, coordination, and reaction time. These effects can last up to 24 hours after smoking marijuana. Marijuana use can make it difficult to judge distances and react to signals and sounds on the road.

There is data showing that marijuana can play a role in crashes. When users combine marijuana with alcohol, as they often do, the hazards of driving can be more severe than with either drug alone.

A study of patients in a shock-trauma unit who had been in traffic accidents revealed that 15 percent of those who had been driving a car or motorcycle had been smoking marijuana, and another 17 percent had both THC and alcohol in their blood.

In one study conducted in Memphis, TN, researchers found that, of 150 reckless drivers who were tested for drugs at the arrest scene, 33 percent tested positive for marijuana, and 12 percent tested positive for both marijuana and cocaine. Data also show that while smoking marijuana, people show the same lack of coordination on standard "drunk driver" tests as do people who have had too much to drink.

Smoking any drug is unhealthy. Marijuana is no exception. The smoke actually contains higher concentrations of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) than tobacco smoke. Marijuana smokers generally inhale more smoke for longer depositing more than 4 times as much tar on their lungs as cigarette smokers.

Worse is if you combine marijuana and tobacco. If you are a heavy smoker of marijuana and tobacco joints (more than 10 a day) you are significantly increasing your risk of contracting lung disease. Recent studies show that the greatest pre-cancerous abnormalities appear in those who smoke the two drugs together.

A common side-effect, usually for first time or early users, is anxiety, panic, paranoia and feelings of impending doom. In a recent study, between 10%-15% of people who smoked marijuana reported "paranoid" or "confused" feelings as a disadvantage of smoking marijuana. And over 27% reported "anxiety" as a regular or occasional effect. Around 30% gave "negative experiences" as their reason for permanently quitting marijuana.

Effects on the Brain

Scientists have learned a great deal about how THC acts in the brain to produce its many effects. When someone smokes marijuana, THC rapidly passes from the lungs into the bloodstream, which carries the chemical to organs throughout the body, including the brain.

In the brain, THC connects to specific sites called cannabinoid receptors on nerve cells and influences the activity of those cells. Some brain areas have many cannabinoid receptors; others have few or none. Many cannabinoid receptors are found in the parts of the brain that influence pleasure, memory, thought, concentration, sensory and time perception, and coordinated movement.

The short-term effects of marijuana use can include problems with memory and learning; distorted perception; difficulty in thinking and problem solving; loss of coordination; and increased heart rate. Research findings for long-term marijuana use indicate some changes in the brain similar to those seen after long-term use of other major drugs of abuse. For example, cannabinoid (THC or synthetic forms of THC) withdrawal in chronically exposed animals leads to an increase in the activation of the stress-response system and changes in the activity of nerve cells containing dopamine. Dopamine neurons are involved in the regulation of motivation and reward, and are directly or indirectly affected by all drugs of abuse.

Effects on the Heart

One study has indicated that a user’s risk of heart attack more than quadruples in the first hour after smoking marijuana. The researchers suggest that such an effect might occur from marijuana’s effects on blood pressure and heart rate and reduced oxygen-carrying capacity of blood.

Effects on the Lungs

A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers. Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

Even infrequent use can cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat, often accompanied by a heavy cough. Someone who smokes marijuana regularly may have many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers do, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, a heightened risk of lung infections, and a greater tendency to obstructed airways.

Cancer of the respiratory tract and lungs may also be promoted by marijuana smoke. A study comparing 173 cancer patients and 176 healthy individuals produced strong evidence that smoking marijuana increases the likelihood of developing cancer of the head or neck, and the more marijuana smoked the greater the increase. A statistical analysis of the data suggested that marijuana smoking doubled or tripled the risk of these cancers.

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

Other Health Effects

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

Effects of Heavy Marijuana Use on Learning and Social Behavior

Depression, anxiety, and personality disturbances are all associated with marijuana use. Research clearly demonstrates that marijuana use has potential to cause problems in daily life or make a person’s existing problems worse. Because marijuana compromises the ability to learn and remember information, the more a person uses marijuana the more he or she is likely to fall behind in accumulating intellectual, job, or social skills. Moreover, research has shown that marijuana’s adverse impact on memory and learning can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off.

Students who smoke marijuana get lower grades and are less likely to graduate from high school, compared to their non-smoking peers. In one study, researchers compared marijuana-smoking and non-smoking 12th-graders’ scores on standardized tests of verbal and mathematical skills. Although all of the students had scored equally well in 4th grade, the marijuana smokers’ scores were significantly lower in 12th grade.

A study of 129 college students found that, for heavy users of marijuana (those who smoked the drug at least 27 of the preceding 30 days), critical skills related to attention, memory, and learning were significantly impaired even after they had not used the drug for at least 24 hours. The heavy marijuana users in the study had more trouble sustaining and shifting their attention and in registering, organizing, and using information than did the study participants who had used marijuana no more than 3 of the previous 30 days. As a result, someone who smokes marijuana once daily may be functioning at a reduced intellectual level all of the time.

More recently, the same researchers showed that the ability of a group of long-term heavy marijuana users to recall words from a list remained impaired for a week after quitting, but returned to normal within 4 weeks. An implication of this finding is that some cognitive abilities may be restored in individuals who quit smoking marijuana, even after long-term heavy use.

Workers who smoke marijuana are more likely than their coworkers to have problems on the job. Several studies associate workers' marijuana smoking with increased absences, tardiness, accidents, workers' compensation claims, and job turnover. A study of municipal workers found that those who used marijuana on or off the job reported more "withdrawal behaviors"—such as leaving work without permission, daydreaming, spending work time on personal matters, and shirking tasks—that adversely affect productivity and morale.

Effects on Pregnancy

Research has shown that babies born to women who used marijuana during their pregnancies display altered responses to visual stimuli, increased tremulousness, and a high-pitched cry, which may indicate problems with neurological development. During infancy and preschool years, marijuana-exposed children have been observed to have more behavioral problems and poorer performance on tasks of visual perception, language comprehension, sustained attention, and memory. In school, these children are more likely to exhibit deficits in decision-making skills, memory, and the ability to remain attentive.

Addictive Potential

Long-term marijuana use can lead to addiction for some people; that is, they use the drug compulsively even though it often interferes with family, school, work, and recreational activities. Drug craving and withdrawal symptoms can make it hard for long-term marijuana smokers to stop using the drug. People trying to quit report irritability, sleeplessness, and anxiety(38). They also display increased aggression on psychological tests, peaking approximately one week after the last use of the drug(39).

Source:
http://www.marijuana-detox.com/m-dangers.htm

[Weltall]

The funny thing is, I showed Toven a doctor's report that refuted much of his article, and listed dozens of sources for its information (his article listed none), and he dismissed the whole thing out of hand because "the scientists are all potheads", and states that "popular opinion is against pot, therefore it's correct".

The article is :
http://paranoia.lycaeum.org/marijuana/fa...html#myth6

Toven couldn't hold his dick in a debate.

[etoven]

The funny thing is, I showed Toven a doctor's report that refuted much of his article, and listed dozens of sources for its information (his article listed none), and he dismissed the whole thing out of hand because "the scientists are all potheads", and states that "popular opinion is against pot, therefore it's correct".

The article is :
http://paranoia.lycaeum.org/marijuana/fa...html#myth6

Toven couldn't hold his dick in a debate.

Consequently some of the sources I looked up for this Ryan's called non biased article which was written by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws who charges $2.95 a minute to call and voice your opinion via a 1 900 number.

One such source referenced:

1. Herbert Moskowitz, Marihuana and Driving, Accident Analysis and Prevention 17#4: 323-45 (1985).
   

Who's experiments actually proved Marihuana hinders driving ability. And was miss represented and states that in his own report.
Viewable: [Here]

I think I hold my massively giant cock pretty well and your source is rapidly loosing credibility. And yes you so called scientists were all pot heads a pot head organization in fact.

[Sacred Jellybean]

etoven: I'll pick apart your post when I have more time, but I did a search on your source and found that it was marijuana-detox.com. On the right panel of your page, it has a quote by actress Kirstey Alley hawking Narconon, a drug rehabilitation center. That isn't exactly an unbiased source either.

I'll reply to the posts of you other respondents, too, again, when I'm not so busy.

[Sacred Jellybean]

Okay, looks like I have some spare time before class after all, so let the games continue!

I hardly "run screaming in the other direction". Is that how you view people who are clean of the stuff, as a bunch of tightwads who don't know how to have a good time? In fact, in the one occasion I have been offered the stuff, I simply politely declined. I will add that the person who offered it was also polite and respected that.

Haha, of course not, I was just being hyperbolic. I don't view people who abstain as "tightwads" (I'm sure they have more reasons than financial to abstain :p), just as people who have a different preference than me. I respect that choice.

I actually don't smoke nicotine either, and it's beyond me why anyone who grew up in the era where pictures of horribly blackened lungs were routinely given to children as birthday presents would actually want to take up that habbit.

Stupidity is the reason. There's no excuse for trying and continuing to something you know is terrible for your body. And, second-hand smoke always smelled great. And, I thought it'd be a good social function, me being new to college and everything. Also, I find it relaxing to take a few minutes off from whatever I'm doing to stand outside and puff on something. And *Ted Raimi voice* "Because it's coooooooooool!"

(that's a reference from "Battle of the Planets" of Zim fame)

I'm free to openly criticize your choice and say your "body policy" or whatever you call it is not very healthy. I mean it's still smoke we are talking about here. It can still cause lung cancer if nothing else, and it isn't nothing else, as it does cause memory issues.

Cannabis isn't proven to cause cancer. In fact, there was a slightly negative correlation of incidence of lung cancer when they compared those who smoke nothing and those who smoke only cannabis (and not cigarettes). It hasn't been proven to cause emphysema, either. However, cannabis smoke IS still irritating to the throat and can likely cause bronchitis. There are alternatives to smoking, of course - ingestion by cooking it by various means (brownies, cookies, tea, "cannabutter", hash oil, etc) and vaporization, mainly.

But, your choice. You won't die from it, and the smoke is actually less likely to kill you than tobacco, so hey, you've got that going for you.

I sure do. :D

Rest assured, Beanjo, that I will read your epic post in it's entirety when I have a day or so free.

However, I did read you responses to my post and, though I feel it unfair to use someones three-year-old words against them (pfft, what am I saying, in politics, that's nothing), I will say that my view on the use of marijuana has not changed much. I still have no desire to smoke it, nor will you change my mind, I'm afraid. I've no interest, so waste not your energy.

I figured some people's viewpoints would have at least softened. I won't hold those words against you, but it still felt good to type out. :)

That being said, what has changed is my viewpoint on those who do choose to partake. I do not feel these people are less than me, stupid, or anything of the like I may have felt those years ago. I've grown more tolerant of others in my wise old age, and if that is how you choose to enjoy yourself then by all means enjoy, my views on your hobby are irrelevant, as yours may be to mine.

Good to hear. I don't care whether another person smokes or not, but it's the condescension by those who don't smoke that pushes my buttons.

Let us agree to disagree, my friend. I still respect you as well .

diplomacy++; //Sounds good

(sigh, only from a bloody Computer Science major)

Intelligent people can make bad choices, certainly, but it doesn't make the choices any less bad.

What makes those choices bad in the eyes of prohibitionists is misinformation about the substance in question. Of course, I ought to ask - are you another person in the boat that believes that cigarettes and alcohol should be illegal, too? Why is it a crime to alter one's perception, if he isn't harming anyone?

As for the second paragraph... if it affects others (like secondhand cigarette smoke -- I should never have to smell that stuff and have it get in my system! Or even more obviously, drunk driving.) then it is wrong.

That's certainly your choice to make, but if pot were legalized, people wouldn't be walking down the street and smoking it (not ideally, anyway). There will still be public intoxication laws in place, and it would be similar to the fact that in many places, you aren't technically allowed to have alcohol out in the open.

If you're only hurting yourself it is a somewhat less clear picture, but I do think society has a responsibility to keep people from hurting themselves too much, and this includes efforts like trying to get people off of drugs, suicide prevention efforts, etc. These are good things.

IMO, people who casually use marijuana (let's say, once a week) simply aren't harming themselves. The harm from grass only comes from A) smoking it and irritating the throat, B) becoming addicted to it (don't forget that physical dependency is hardly present - it's less physically addictive than caffeine) and smoking it to the point where it interferes with one's social life, job, relationships, etc. How likely is this to happen? Well, an estimated 83 million people (37 percent) over the age of 12 have tried marijuana. If cannabis addiction were an epidemic, I think we'd know. ;)

Many sources try to make the claim that most people go to rehab for marijuana abuse, but the truth is, many people are SENT there by a judge as part of a plea bargain. The statistic of how many people is then abused, with prohibitionists claiming that people are mostly dependent upon cannabis. See how their propaganda works?

Yes, I know that marijuana 'isn't as bad' as harder drugs. This just isn't that relevant, really. Less bad is still bad!

Many things can be considered "bad", given the proper context. Drinking too much water is bad. Rigorous exercise can cause a heart-attack. Here, let me give you an even better example:

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000

(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000

© Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health Human Services.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now think about this:

(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.

(Yes, that's 80 million..)

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

© The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188

Statistics courtesy of the FBI

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So, statistically, doctors are approximately

9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN,

BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!

(that was taken from a chain-email from people who are anti-gun-control)

Once again, given the proper context, anything can be considered bad.

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

Etoven: I'm still planning to pick apart your post, but I have class in an hour and need some time for some last-minute preparations. However, I'll answer the part of your post that you actually wrote for now.

Let me pose this question SJ....

You say you drove stoned off your ass with no insident while high on marijuana.

Hold on, there. I've driven while under the influence of cannabis, not "stoned off my ass". I may have been under some influence, but that's hardly a black-and-white issue. Same with alcohol: there's a blood alcohol content level which states use as a threshold to determine when a driver is too intoxicated.

How the hell do you know your drive was with out incident? You where stoned off your ass being stupid!

I'm glad you were there to know how stupid I was being. Which night in particular are you talking about?

You could have murdered fifty people and not realized it cause you where stoned off your ass.

Please, PLEASE tell me you don't actually believe this. Where do you draw your knowledge from - Reefer Madness?

Not to mention that being stoned certainly does nothing for the reflexes, timing, coordination, reaction time all crucial to driving. No doubt you ran several red lights and almost caused numerous traffic accidents and didn't realize it.

Ahahahahahahaha!! Hoo-boy, you've never smoked, have you? I can get a good buzz from cannabis going on without being rendered completely oblivious, thank you very much. I can't say the same about alcohol, unfortunately. I can smoke and have intelligent conversations, cook food, do homework (though I prefer to be sober, because I don't get distracted as easily, and feel like I retain information better) and... well, pretty much anything I can do while sober.

You probably didn't hear anything about it or assume it was without incident, because there where enough clear headed drivers out that night to get the hell out of your way.

I'm staying the hell off the road when your pot head ass comes driving by!

If this is your attitude towards cannabis (completely unfounded and inaccurate and based on myths that have been proven false decades ago), I won't even bother arguing with you. Next thing, you'll tell me that I'll sprout BREASTS because I smoke weed!

You say you where clear headed while smoking pot.

Not entirely clearheaded, no, but I'm nowhere NEAR as incapacitated as you're suggesting.

But You where high as well Your senses where also imparted. I did need the personal experiences of person in a drug induced state, I will not and can not except that as evidence to the contrary.

I'm assuming you meant "I don't need the personal...", as you've clearly had no experience with grass or grass-smokers whatsoever. Your delusional ideas of marijuana usage seem like they come directly from D.A.R.E.

I choose to rely on empirical evidence, the facts of pot smoking are in abundance.

On the contrary, you're relying on misinformation and propaganda from a source that makes its money offering drug rehabilitation.

[Great Rumbler]

[Sacred Jellybean]

Actually, I've found that taking a couple hits before a round of Melee actually improves my performance. I feel like I'm more into the game, focused better, and I certainly enjoy it more. :) That's just a personal observation, and I could be wrong.

Only losers lose drugs.

Now, to tackle etoven and marijuana-detox.com's arguments:

Marijuana has many dangers; through both immediate effects and damage to health over time.

Dum-dum-DUUUUUMMMM!!! I suggest you watch Grass, etoven. It slightly biased towards legalizing marijuana, but it addresses many misguided myths.

Marijuana hinders the user's short-term memory (memory for recent events), and he or she may have trouble handling complex tasks. With the use of more potent varieties of marijuana, even simple tasks can be difficult.

I'd like examples. I like to get high and play video games. The only interference comes from short-term memory retention. I also like to get high and philosophize with friends and mine. Even if this were true, it's not like humans are obligated to ALWAYS be readily available to handle complex tasks. Relaxation periods are necessary and healthy to an individual's mental health and emotional stability.

Because of the drug's effects on perceptions and reaction time, users could be involved in auto crashes. Drug users also may become involved in risky sexual behavior. There is a strong link between drug use and unsafe sex and the spread of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

This is irrelevant. People can blame grass all they want on keeping their willies in their britches, but alcohol is far more likely to cause unsafe sex on its impairment on a user's judgment. Grass does induce an impairment and makes the user horny in many cases, but alcohol is worse, and with grass, rational-thinking isn't very difficult (speaking from personal experience). I would be willing to bet money on an empirical study (a citation of which this excerpt does NOT contain).

Under the influence of marijuana, students may find it hard to study and learn. Young athletes could find their performance is off; timing, movements, and coordination are all affected by THC.

Yet athletes who are tested positive for THC are banned from olympic and other sporting events. Really ingenius drug policy there, no? Anyway, I also highlighted key words from your source that make their statements indefinite and not absolute.

Allow me to reiterate that it's up to the user to manage his time correctly. Only an irresponsible weed-smoker will get high before going to work, or attending classes, or studying, or doing anything that ought to require a sober perception for maximum efficiency. Of course, there are people who get high and go to work. Guess what happens? A) They won't get caught, and it won't make a difference, or B) it will show through their work, they'll be seen as incompetent and reprimanded for a mediocre performance (less likey, imo) and perhaps fired. Some people can manage it, some can't. The conclusion? The drug itself is not at fault - the person using it is at fault. Much like guns: guns don't kill people, psychotic killers kill people. Guns are practical when used properly, much like cannabis.

Marijuana affects many skills required for safe driving: alertness, the ability to concentrate, coordination, and reaction time. These effects can last up to 24 hours after smoking marijuana. Marijuana use can make it difficult to judge distances and react to signals and sounds on the road.

You probably didn't read my monolith of a post. That's okay, allow me to quote it (and let me tell you, I DO cite my conclusions, and my citations don't include NORML):

There are laws in place for drugged driving, in case you haven't noticed. Simple tests given by the police officer should determine if a person is incapacitated to a degree in which operating a motor vehicle is unsafe. How does that contradict what substances should be prohibited? Now, while I absolutely do not condone altering one's consciousness while operating machinery that puts the lives of others at risk, I can tell you with 100% certainty that, given a pair of options that I *must* choose from, I would much rather take a ride with a high driver than a drunk driver (if they're on, roughly, the same level of dosage). I'll include the appropriate references:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/...ETRY=1&SRETRY=0

http://www.ukcia.org/research/driving.htm

And, in case your attention span is short:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfcRyruo91Y

If you won't accept my moral relativity argument (that is, "cannabis shouldn't be taken while driving, but alcohol is worse"), again, my argument is just because some people are irresponsible and drive while under the influence of drugs, it's no reason to penalize those who DO use cannabis properly.

There is data showing that marijuana can play a role in crashes. When users combine marijuana with alcohol, as they often do, the hazards of driving can be more severe than with either drug alone.

Gee, ya reckon? Also, users don't "often combine marijuana with alcohol." It's another myth that people don't just use cannabis: they use it in combination with other drugs. BZZT! This is a rough estimate, but I only combine alcohol with smoking about 5% of my total smoking time. The gateway theory has many times been attempted to be proven with actual scientific and empirical evidence, and it always fails.

A study of patients in a shock-trauma unit who had been in traffic accidents revealed that 15 percent of those who had been driving a car or motorcycle had been smoking marijuana, and another 17 percent had both THC and alcohol in their blood.

In one study conducted in Memphis, TN, researchers found that, of 150 reckless drivers who were tested for drugs at the arrest scene, 33 percent tested positive for marijuana, and 12 percent tested positive for both marijuana and cocaine. Data also show that while smoking marijuana, people show the same lack of coordination on standard "drunk driver" tests as do people who have had too much to drink.

They also found that (I'm pulling these statistics out of my ass, obviously - don't worry, marijuana-detox.com probably did the same thing) 45% of people in these accidents had blonde hair. BLONDE PEOPLE CAUSE TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS!! Actually, a better approach would be to emperically measure, in a controlled study, the amount of people who smoke cannabis and drive, then pick out how many of those people have trouble driving. There needs to be studies conducted on people's performance in smoking and driving. Correlation is not causation. 33% seems really high; I wouldn't be surprised if they found THC metabolites in the subject's blood along with other drugs. With no citation to the study, we'll never know its quality. Studies conducted by groups who are out to keep drugs illegal are often biased or intentionally misconstrued.

Smoking any drug is unhealthy. Marijuana is no exception. The smoke actually contains higher concentrations of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) than tobacco smoke. Marijuana smokers generally inhale more smoke for longer depositing more than 4 times as much tar on their lungs as cigarette smokers.

From wikipedia.org:

Cannabis smoke contains numerous carcinogens[6][7][8], however scientific studies have failed to show higher cancer rates in cannabis smokers. A study published in 2006 by Donald Tashkin of the University of California, Los Angeles, the largest study of its kind, concluded there is no link between smoking cannabis and lung cancer. [36]A study published in 2006 on a large population sample (1,200 people with lung, neck, or head cancer, and a matching group of 1,040 without cancer) failed to positively correlate a lung cancer risk, in fact the results indicated a slight negative correlation between long and short-term cannabis use and cancer, suggesting a possible therapeutic effect. Cellular studies and even some studies in animal models suggest that THC has antitumor properties, either by encouraging programmed cell death of genetically damaged cells that can become cancerous, or by restricting the development of the blood supply that feeds tumors.[37] Prior, a 1997 study examining the records of 64,855 Kaiser patients (14,033 of whom identified themselves as current smokers), also found no positive correlation between cannabis use and cancer.[38] A Research Triangle Institute study concluded that THC, a dilative agent, may help cleanse the lungs by dilating the bronchi, and could actively reduce the instance of tumors.[39] Additionally, a study by Rosenblatt et al. found no association between marijuana use and the development of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.[40]

Worse is if you combine marijuana and tobacco. If you are a heavy smoker of marijuana and tobacco joints (more than 10 a day) you are significantly increasing your risk of contracting lung disease. Recent studies show that the greatest pre-cancerous abnormalities appear in those who smoke the two drugs together.

These studies are not cited, and I've never heard anything of this sort. It's a biased source to begin with. Next!

A common side-effect, usually for first time or early users, is anxiety, panic, paranoia and feelings of impending doom. In a recent study, between 10%-15% of people who smoked marijuana reported "paranoid" or "confused" feelings as a disadvantage of smoking marijuana. And over 27% reported "anxiety" as a regular or occasional effect. Around 30% gave "negative experiences" as their reason for permanently quitting marijuana.

So if 10-15% of people feel anxious, paranoid, and confused, the other 85-90% should stop smoking and enjoying the feelings of relaxation, euphoria, ecstasy, etc? Here's a better idea: those 10-15% of people can find another hobby that doesn't cause them anxiety.

The short-term effects of marijuana use can include problems with memory and learning; distorted perception; difficulty in thinking and problem solving; loss of coordination;

Same with alcohol, but (with alcohol) increased significantly.

and increased heart rate.

Sex causes increased heart-rate as well. BAN CONDOMS!

Research findings for long-term marijuana use indicate some changes in the brain similar to those seen after long-term use of other major drugs of abuse. For example, cannabinoid (THC or synthetic forms of THC) withdrawal in chronically exposed animals leads to an increase in the activation of the stress-response system and changes in the activity of nerve cells containing dopamine. Dopamine neurons are involved in the regulation of motivation and reward, and are directly or indirectly affected by all drugs of abuse.

From Exposing Marijuana and Myths: Review of Scientific Evidence:

In the most recently published study, rhesus monkeys were exposed through face-mask inhalation to the smoke equivalent of four to five joints per day for one year. When sacrificed seven months later, there was no observed alteration of hippocampal architecture, cell size, cell number, or synaptic configuration. The authors conclude:

"While behavioral and neuroendocrinal effects are observed during marijuana smoke exposure in the monkey, residual neuropathological and neurochemical effects of marijuana exposure were not observed seven months after the year-long marijuana smoke regimen." 53

Thus, 20 years after the first report of brain damage in two marijuana-exposed monkeys, the claim of damage to brain cells has been effectively disproven.

No postmortem examinations of the brains of human marijuana users have ever been conducted. However, numerous studies have explored marijuana effect on brain-related cognitive functions. Many employ an experimental design—in which subjects are given marijuana in a laboratory setting, and then compared to controls on a variety of measures involving attention, learning and memory.

"In a number of studies, no significant differences were detected. 54 In fact, there is substantial research demonstrating that that marijuana intoxication does not impair the retrieval of information learned previously. 55 However, there is evidence that marijuana, particularly in high doses, may interfere with users' ability to transfer new information into longterm memory. 56"

While there is general agreement that, while under the influence of marijuana, learning is less efficient, 57 there is no evidence that marijuana users—even longterm users—suffer permanent impairment. Indeed, numerous studies comparing chronic marijuana users with non-user controls have found no significant differences in learning, memory recall or other cognitive functions. 58

One study has indicated that a user’s risk of heart attack more than quadruples in the first hour after smoking marijuana. The researchers suggest that such an effect might occur from marijuana’s effects on blood pressure and heart rate and reduced oxygen-carrying capacity of blood.

No citation given for the ONE study that concludes this. This is from an interview with a physician by the name of Dr. Lesten Grinspoon (okay, he's an advocate of cannabis legalization, but at least the man is competent and an expert in the field):

WOL: Dr. Grinspoon, what is your assessment of the Middleman report?

Dr. Grinspoon: (Laughs). I've been getting phone calls all week about it. I even spoke with Dr. Middleman this week to ask him for his report. It has not yet been written. In fact, he does have an abstract. Now, let me say that since 1967 there have been numerous reports and studies, each of which the American media has blown out of all proportion, stating one or another supposed ill effect of marijuana use. I can list them, if you'd like. 'Increase in the size of the ventricles, decrease in testosterone, destruction of chromosomes.' All were front-page stories, none of them have ever been replicated. In other words, they didn't pan out scientifically. Of course, the studies that contradicted them ended up on page 31 or thereabouts, if they got mentioned at all.

WOL: So you don't give much weight to Dr. Middleman's findings?

Dr. Grinspoon: Well, I would point out that out of 3,882 patients, we're talking about 9 who used marijuana within an hour of the onset of a heart attack. That's around 0.2%. By sheer mathematics, given that people sleep eight hours per day or so, we can deduce that 6.7% of those patients emptied their bowels within an hour of onset. It's incredible to me that the numbers here could be said to constitute a significant risk factor.

WOL: Dr. Middleman said in an interview that he believes that it is the increased heart rate from smoking marijuana that is responsible.

Dr. Grinspoon: Yes, and he put that increase at 40 beats per minute. In truth, that number is closer to 20 beats per minute, which is probably consistent with running up the stairs in one's house.

WOL: So you disagree with Dr. Middleman's characterization of the risk as 'significant'?

Dr. Grinspoon: First, let me say that I blame the media far more than I do Dr. Middleman. I read his abstract, and in its conclusion he cautioned against making too much of the data. Conceivably, there is some risk, although if there is, it is barely measurable. Even assuming that the data presented is right, one must still wait to see if it can be replicated.

WOL: You seem to be pretty skeptical about the chances of that happening.

Dr. Grinspoon: Well, in 1997, Kaiser Permanente did a large-scale study which included more than 65,000 admitted marijuana users, and they could not demonstrate any impact of marijuana use on mortality. If marijuana use really was a significant risk factor for heart attack, it is hard to believe that it didn't turn up there. Again, I'm not saying that there is absolutely no risk demonstrated here. But given the history of the research since 1967, I'd be surprised if these findings don't go down the same chute as all of the other front-page scare stories.

A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers. Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

No citation given. Here's an interesting piece of news, though:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006560113,00.html

It's about a woman in India who's 120 years old (making her a candidate for one of the oldest people on the earth) who smokes cannabis daily.

Even infrequent use can cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat, often accompanied by a heavy cough.

Dum-dum-DUUUUM!! Well, smoking isn't the only way to take cannabis. Vaporization produces much of the same effects as smoking, without the harm inflicted from smoke.

Someone who smokes marijuana regularly may have many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers do, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, a heightened risk of lung infections, and a greater tendency to obstructed airways.

Speculation; no citation given. Given that cannabis doesn't produce lung cancer or emphysema, I think we can all agree that it's misguided to attribute it to the same ailments associated with cigarette smoking, yes?

Cancer of the respiratory tract and lungs may also be promoted by marijuana smoke. A study comparing 173 cancer patients and 176 healthy individuals produced strong evidence that smoking marijuana increases the likelihood of developing cancer of the head or neck, and the more marijuana smoked the greater the increase. A statistical analysis of the data suggested that marijuana smoking doubled or tripled the risk of these cancers.

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

I already refuted this.

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

This is false. Also from Exposing Marijuana Myths: A Review of Scientific Evidence:

It has been widely claimed that marijuana substantially increases users' risk of contracting various infectious diseases. First emerging in the 1970s, this claim took on new significance in the 1980s, following reports of marijuana use by people suffering from AIDS.
The Facts

The principal study fueling the original claim of immune impairment involved preparations created with white blood cells that had been removed from marijuana smokers and controls. After exposing the cells to known immune activators, researchers reported a lower rate of "transformation" in those taken from marijuana smokers. 26

However, numerous groups of scientists, using similar techniques, have failed to confirm this original study. 27

In fact, a 1988 study demonstrated an increase in responsiveness when white blood cells from marijuana smokers were exposed to immunological activators. 28

Studies involving laboratory animals have shown immune impairment following administration of THC, but only with the use of extremely high doses. For example, one study demonstrated an increase in herpes infection in rodents given doses of 100 mg/kg/day - a dose approximately 1000 times the dose necessary to produce a psychoactive effect in humans. 29

There have been no clinical or epidemiological studies showing an increase in bacterial, viral, or parasitic infection among human marijuana users. In three large field studies conducted in the 1970s, in Jamaica, Costa Rica and Greece, researchers found no differences in disease susceptibility between marijuana users and matched controls. 30

Marijuana use does not increase the risk of HIV infection; nor does it increase the onset or intensity of symptoms among AIDS patients. 31 In fact, the FDA decision to approve the use of Marinol (synthetic THC) for use in HIV-wasting syndrome relied upon the absence of any immunopathology due to THC. 32

Today, thousands of people with AIDS are smoking marijuana daily to combat nausea and increase appetite. There is no scientific basis for claims that this practice compromises their immune responses. Indeed, the recent discovery of a peripheral cannabinoid receptor associated with lymphatic tissue should encourage aggressive exploration of THC's potential use as an immune-system stimulant. 33

Effects of Heavy Marijuana Use on Learning and Social Behavior

Depression, anxiety, and personality disturbances are all associated with marijuana use.

Because people with this problems likely smoke it for emotional relief. That doesn't mean cannabis CAUSED them. People who take anti-depressants are also associated with "depression, anxiety, and personality disturbances". I guess we better rid the world of medication for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, etc.

Research clearly demonstrates that marijuana use has potential to cause problems in daily life or make a person’s existing problems worse. Because marijuana compromises the ability to learn and remember information, the more a person uses marijuana the more he or she is likely to fall behind in accumulating intellectual, job, or social skills. Moreover, research has shown that marijuana’s adverse impact on memory and learning can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off.

From http://www.mikuriya.com/cw_depend.html :

The complex interplay of cannabis use with physiology and psychology challenges research. Outcomes are combinations of pharmacology, expectations, setting, personal and social forces. The contemporary ambiguity, a product of ignorance from deprivation of contemporary clinical experience, may be somewhat assuaged by two facts: Firstly, cannabis has been used for millennia by numerous cultures without serious adverse consequences. Secondly, neither the composition of cannabis nor the physiology of humans have changed since the drug was taken from the armementarium of medicine.

Students who smoke marijuana get lower grades and are less likely to graduate from high school, compared to their non-smoking peers. In one study, researchers compared marijuana-smoking and non-smoking 12th-graders’ scores on standardized tests of verbal and mathematical skills. Although all of the students had scored equally well in 4th grade, the marijuana smokers’ scores were significantly lower in 12th grade.

People who experiment with drugs are people who generally rebel against society's standards. Correlation != causation. Minors who smoke weed are also more likely to skip class (and would probably have done so regardless), but did weed cause that, or was it an ongoing problem before the user began smoking? Marijuana-detox.com still hasn't proven a thing, aside from self-interest and promotion of a service that makes it's money off of convincing people that they have a drug problem and need treatment for it. I'm not saying people don't have problems with drug addiction, but not everyone does, particularly people who use a drug that's less physically addictive than caffeine, cigarettes, and alcohol.

A study of 129 college students found that, for heavy users of marijuana (those who smoked the drug at least 27 of the preceding 30 days), critical skills related to attention, memory, and learning were significantly impaired even after they had not used the drug for at least 24 hours. The heavy marijuana users in the study had more trouble sustaining and shifting their attention and in registering, organizing, and using information than did the study participants who had used marijuana no more than 3 of the previous 30 days. As a result, someone who smokes marijuana once daily may be functioning at a reduced intellectual level all of the time.

Surprise, surprise, still no citation given!

More recently, the same researchers showed that the ability of a group of long-term heavy marijuana users to recall words from a list remained impaired for a week after quitting, but returned to normal within 4 weeks. An implication of this finding is that some cognitive abilities may be restored in individuals who quit smoking marijuana, even after long-term heavy use.

They never define what "long-term heavy marijuana usage" encapsulates. It wouldn't surprise me if someone who smoked all day, every day eventually had memory problems (though insubstantial - honestly, this is trouble remembering a list of words, for crying out loud). The page concedes that after 4 weeks, normal cognitive abilities are restored. In conclusion, if you don't moderate your pot use (that is, you smoke it every day, all day) for the long-term (something they again fail to define), eventually, you'll have transient memory problems that won't reverse until you quit after a month. Is that really so bad?

Workers who smoke marijuana are more likely than their coworkers to have problems on the job. Several studies associate workers' marijuana smoking with increased absences, tardiness, accidents, workers' compensation claims, and job turnover. A study of municipal workers found that those who used marijuana on or off the job reported more "withdrawal behaviors"—such as leaving work without permission, daydreaming, spending work time on personal matters, and shirking tasks—that adversely affect productivity and morale.

This study requires the participant to admit that he smokes pot to his co-workers. I'm sure there are many closet-smokers that will lie about something like this. Hence, the results are skewed.

Research has shown that babies born to women who used marijuana during their pregnancies display altered responses to visual stimuli, increased tremulousness, and a high-pitched cry, which may indicate problems with neurological development. During infancy and preschool years, marijuana-exposed children have been observed to have more behavioral problems and poorer performance on tasks of visual perception, language comprehension, sustained attention, and memory. In school, these children are more likely to exhibit deficits in decision-making skills, memory, and the ability to remain attentive.

Again, from Exposing Marijuana Myths: A Review of the Scientific Evidence:

A number of studies claimed reported low birth weight and physical abnormalities among babies exposed to marijuana in utero. 43 However, when other factors known to affect pregnancy outcomes were controlled for—for example, maternal age, socioeconomic class, and alcohol and tobacco use—the association between marijuana use and adverse fetal effects disappeared. 44

Numerous other studies have failed to find negative impacts from marijuana exposure. 45 However, when negative outcomes are found, they tend to be widely publicized, regardless of the quality of the study.

"It is now often claimed that marijuana use during pregnancy causes childhood leukemia. The basis for this claim is one study, in which .5% of the mothers of leukemic children admitted to using marijuana prior to or during pregnancy. A "control group" of mothers with normal children was then created and questioned by telephone about previous drug use. Their reported .5% marijuana use-rate was used to calculate a 10-fold greater risk of leukemia for children born to marijuana users. 46 Given national surveys showing marijuana prevalence rates of at least 10%, these "control group" mothers almost certainly under-reported their drug use to strangers on the telephone."

Also used as evidence of marijuana-induced fetal harm are two longitudinal studies, in which the children of marijuana users were examined repeatedly. However, on closer examination, the effects of marijuana appear to be quite minimal, if existent at all.

"After finding a slight deficit in visual responsiveness among marijuana-exposed newborns, no differences were found at six months, 12 months, 18 months, or 24 months. 47 At age 3, the only difference (after controlling for confounding variables) was that children of "moderate" smokers had superior psycho-motor skills. At age 4, children of "heavy" marijuana users (averaging 18.7 joints/week) had lower scores on one subscale of one standardized test of verbal development. 48 At age 6, these same children scored lower on one computerized task—that measuring "vigilance." On dozens of others scales and subscales, no differences were ever found. 49

In another study, standardized IQ tests were administered to marijuana-exposed and unexposed three year-olds. Researchers found no differences in the overall scores. However, by dividing the sample by race, they found—among African-American children only—lower scores on one subscale for those exposed during the first trimester and lower scores on a different subscale for those exposed during the second trimester. 50"

Although it is sensible to advise pregnant women to abstain from using most drugs—including marijuana—the weight of scientific evidence indicates that marijuana has few adverse consequences for the developing human fetus.

Long-term marijuana use can lead to addiction for some people; that is, they use the drug compulsively even though it often interferes with family, school, work, and recreational activities.

It's possible, but it's not all black-and-white. Propaganda sources like these specialize in taking the worst-case-scenario and blowing it out of proportion.

Drug craving and withdrawal symptoms can make it hard for long-term marijuana smokers to stop using the drug. People trying to quit report irritability, sleeplessness, and anxiety(38). They also display increased aggression on psychological tests, peaking approximately one week after the last use of the drug(39).

Irritability, sleeplessness, anxiety? These are hardly qualities of an addiction problem of epidemic proportions. People who have addictions that result in actual physical dependencies become ill without their drug. These problems peak in a week, according to your source, and pale in comparison to quitting cigarettes and alcohol.

[Great Rumbler]

[Sacred Jellybean]

Are you trying to make a point by posting propaganda from our uptight, conservative, "Just Say No To Drugs" Reagan Era? I use drugs, yet in my circle of friends, I can bitch-slap everyone who plays me regularly in Melee.

Here is a list of losers, as per that message:
Carl Sagan
George Carlin
Willie Nelson
Woody Harrelson
Bill Maher
Bill Hicks
Matthew McConaughey
Charlize Theron
Jack Nicholson
Jon Voit
Jennifer Aniston
Al Gore
Bill Clinton (didn't inhale? Bullshit)
George W. Bush
Barack Obama
Paris Hilton... wait, no, I take that one back

Don't these people realize that the fact that they've used marijuana in the past renders their lives useless?! Dumb ol' drug fiends. You try to drill something into their heads, yet they STILL leave their houses to try to make something of themselves. Those stupid fucking pothead burn-out losers!

[Weltall]

He dismissed the entire contents of the article I posted before even reading it. Apparently, the doctor who wrote it was a pothead, and so was every one of the scientists and statisticians listed as one of the 70-some sources. I spent almost an hour arguing with him last night about it, and nothing I said was right because 'I was deluded'. And no, he's never come closer to pot than a TV screen.

I just can't reconcile alcohol being legal and marijuana not being legal. It's a horrible double-standard.

[Sacred Jellybean]

He dismissed the entire contents of the article I posted before even reading it. Apparently, the doctor who wrote it was a pothead, and so was every one of the scientists and statisticians listed as one of the 70-some sources.

Well, I guess I wasted an hour, then. Oh well. Some people have their head too far up their ass to realize the truth, but what can you do? The sad thing is, these people vote.

Was the doctor Lester Grinspoon, by any chance?

I spent almost an hour arguing with him last night about it, and nothing I said was right because 'I was deluded'.

Irony is great.

And no, he's never come closer to pot than a TV screen.

Surprise, surprise.

I just can't reconcile alcohol being legal and marijuana not being legal. It's a horrible double-standard.

Amen, bruddah.

[A Black Falcon]

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!

(that was taken from a chain-email from people who are anti-gun-control)

Once again, given the proper context, anything can be considered bad.

On that subject, banning all non-hunting guns from America would be an extremely good thing... I know it won't happen, but it would help. I know, 'more guns don't mean more violence', as Michael Moore's gun movie showed (comparing the US to Canada, which also has a lot of guns, and how much less violence there is in Canada), but when you've got a problem on the scale we do, something like that couldn't help but make adifference. Police and such would still be armed, of course, but those people who say 'you need weapons to protect yourself from the criminals who would keep guns if they were banned'... well, many other nations have banned handguns and the like, and they seem to be doing a decent job of minimizing the amount of gun violence. :) (violence with other weapons would go up, like knives and the like, but those are less easily lethal...)

What makes those choices bad in the eyes of prohibitionists is misinformation about the substance in question. Of course, I ought to ask - are you another person in the boat that believes that cigarettes and alcohol should be illegal, too? Why is it a crime to alter one's perception, if he isn't harming anyone?

The question of harm vs. benefit is a central one. Tobacco is very easy to categorize: in any quantity, it does harm. Smoke one cigarette or breate in some tobacco smoke and you've done permanant damage to your body. Meanwhile, tobacco has no beneficial side-effects that come even remotely close to negating the negative ones. As a result, it should be banned -- or at least cigarettes should be banned; smokeless tobacco is less bad because people using it only be harm themselves, not themselves and everyone around them.

Alchohol... despite being by far the most abused and dangerous drug fatalities-caused-by-it wise, thanks to drunken driving and alchohol-fueled agression, in small quantities it doesn't do lasting harm and perhaps in some forms helps, so it probably should be legal -- though the societal problems caused by alchohol abuse are huge, and reducing them is very important. I can think of good arguments on both sides of this question... I'm not sure which I more believe.

IMO, people who casually use marijuana (let's say, once a week) simply aren't harming themselves. The harm from grass only comes from A) smoking it and irritating the throat, B) becoming addicted to it (don't forget that physical dependency is hardly present - it's less physically addictive than caffeine) and smoking it to the point where it interferes with one's social life, job, relationships, etc. How likely is this to happen? Well, an estimated 83 million people (37 percent) over the age of 12 have tried marijuana. If cannabis addiction were an epidemic, I think we'd know.

Many sources try to make the claim that most people go to rehab for marijuana abuse, but the truth is, many people are SENT there by a judge as part of a plea bargain. The statistic of how many people is then abused, with prohibitionists claiming that people are mostly dependent upon cannabis. See how their propaganda works?

I don't like any drugs when I can avoid them. If I wanted I could be on medication for social anxiety or something, or (lesser) could look more seriously into if some medicine could deal with whatever it is I'm allergic to (that has caused my nose to not be completely clear in seven or eight years now), but I don't, though for the latter the fact that I tried a few for a while and found that they didn't make it completely go away was part of the reason, for the former, it just feels wrong...

Anyway, arguments like "it is not much more addictive than caffeine" or "it doesn't really do much more impairment than alchohol at best" are not exactly what I would call things that I would look at as examples of why I should support the thing. Legalize something and more people will use it. As a result, legalization of marijuana would harm the public health with only minimal gain (among that tiny percentage who might find medical gains, and medical use could be approved without general legalization, perhaps, under certain conditions).

For instance, Prohibition. While everyone thinks of the speakeasies and illegally made liquor, what isn't as well known is the fact that during prohibition, the number of people using alchohol, and the number abusing it, fell dramatically. The federal government eventually gave up because of public pressures and the impossible task of policing it all in a state of increased criminal activity to serve the people who would not give up alchohol, but overall, drunkenness and alchohol abuse rates dropped appreciably. Once it was legalized again, they began to go back up.

Anyway... legalization might well decrease the criminal activities surrounding the marijuana trade, but it would increase the numbers of people using the drug dramatically, and that would NOT be a good thing. Perhaps look into whether it could actually work in certain medical situations (I am far from convinced that there is proof that it's actually needed (that is, that nothing else could help), and set up a legal procedure for those people to get marijuana in a way that would not support crime (buying it on the street and supporting whatever gangs or criminal groups were involved in its production, transportation, and sale), but don't generally legalize.

I remember when a few years ago I had a roommate (idiot...)... every weekend he went out with his friends and did marijuana or alchohol (not 21 yet) or both, whatever. He got in trouble with the law once that year (him and his genius friends were on something and decided to enter someone's open room and take something in it. They got caught.) and again later on (after that school year, for smoking marijuana on Main Street, I believe... smart, that!). If I hadn't already been strongly opposed to drug use, that would have done it, I expect... that wasn't my point, though. My point was this -- the whole mindset of "wow, I don't remember what we were doing last night at all, isn't that awesome" makes absolutely no sense to me. You forget what you were doing... so that's a GOOD thing? Uh, isn't that pretty obviously BAD, not good? Yup.

[Dark Jaguar]

Whatever the view on gun control, that Michael Moore guy used nothing but shock value and no actual information. His movies are as anti-reason as anything else. It's about as meaningful as that "Super Size Me" movie, also full of misinformation.

Anyway, that all said, biased reports from this or that site are a dime a dozen, but a few good double blinded studies are self evident. Let's get some of those in here.

[Dark Jaguar]

From what I've been reading, the reduced risks are not exactly what you might think. It does not cause emphyzima, but it does have numerous carcinogens.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query...med_docsum

Further, more studies DO in fact show reduced reaction times among other cognitive deficiencies. It can be extrapolated that people driving while high are probably about as dangerous as people driving while tired, another dangerous activity (which is legal, but I'd say that's mainly because it's very hard to test for "tiredness". Certainly risking your own life is fine but the line is drawn when you decide to risk other's lives because, you have to get your car home, right? I mean, what do you expect me to take a bus? YOU take a bus!). Anecdotally, I can say that the one time I've played against some people that actually were high (a rare find with the people I hang out with, and actually I haven't seen these people in years), their abilities sank while their confidence in their abilities rose. The game was Super Smash Bros. Melee. Anyway again that's just a personal anecdote. Though there is this study:

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/ca...ing4.shtml

And for the record, philosophy? I'm sure you had a great time saying things like "what if god is INSIDE us?" or "no I mean like, REALLY inside us" or "yeah... what? no right", but I'd like to hear something using logic (or maybe you have "other ways of knowing") come out of that.

Anyway, don't drive high. Just don't. It may be debatable if it should be illegal, and I really don't care much if you have this hobby as you call it, but certainly it's wrong to endanger someone ELSE and I'm in full support of the law in that regard. No hypothetical "well MAYBE I drive more catiously because I know I'm high" nonsense either. The evidence says one thing, you have reduced ability, and unless you have something better than hypothetical reasons why that might not apply while driving, well, just don't drink and drive, drive while very tired, or get high and drive. In all three instances, what's giving a few hours to lose the effects going to do? Even if there's a sudden emergency in the family, that's not worth the risk. You aren't going to be doing the surgery or investigation or extinguising the fire or whatever yourself, so you aren't needed. You can deal with the emotional whatevers later.

Oh, you'll need to show some sort of evidence that this whole "turning off your brain" thing is actually a good thing for mental stability (emotions are PART of mentallity, they need not be mentioned seperatly). I do that anyway, and it's called sleep. Aside from that, I really just can't shut off my brain and I'm really not sure I want to. I enjoy thinking about things constantly myself, not that I can help it. Indeed, I can't really stay on a single topic for very long periods of time either.

[alien space marine]

Micheal Moore film was distorted , He tries to say that Canada has easy access to guns. By going to a Canadian Walmart and making it appear as if you can purchase a new rifle over the counter just like you had bought a new pair of shoes, When in fact he would have needed to registry a month in advance do his paper work get a License and then show up. Moore likely did go through that complicated process but the documentary neither states or shows it and leads you to falsely believe getting a gun legally in Canada is as easy as buying a Popsicle.

Then there is the Bank scene now that was staged even says so in the movie trivia.

Moore's 9/11 comments are tasteless enough that does deserve to be blown up two holding hot dogs each hand in real life and not just Team America world police

[Sacred Jellybean]

The question of harm vs. benefit is a central one. Tobacco is very easy to categorize: in any quantity, it does harm.

It tastes good and relieves stress. Those are two benefits.

Alchohol... despite being by far the most abused and dangerous drug fatalities-caused-by-it wise, thanks to drunken driving and alchohol-fueled agression, in small quantities it doesn't do lasting harm and perhaps in some forms helps, so it probably should be legal -- though the societal problems caused by alchohol abuse are huge, and reducing them is very important. I can think of good arguments on both sides of this question... I'm not sure which I more believe.

You concede that alcohol is helpful in some forms, but why don't you do the same with cannabis?

I don't like any drugs when I can avoid them. If I wanted I could be on medication for social anxiety or something, or (lesser) could look more seriously into if some medicine could deal with whatever it is I'm allergic to (that has caused my nose to not be completely clear in seven or eight years now), but I don't, though for the latter the fact that I tried a few for a while and found that they didn't make it completely go away was part of the reason, for the former, it just feels wrong...

Yeah, I don't see any need for medication to treat social anxiety disorder. Therapy, rigorous introspection, and perhaps behavioral conditioning seem more appropriate.

Anyway, arguments like "it is not much more addictive than caffeine" or "it doesn't really do much more impairment than alchohol at best" are not exactly what I would call things that I would look at as examples of why I should support the thing.

Don't you consider it a double-standard, though, that we lock people up for cannabis possession and trafficking when it's not as harmful as alcohol? Isn't the fact that it's costly and wasteful enough reason to legalize it? What about the fact that the black market thrives on its illegality?

Legalize something and more people will use it.

As I stated in my earlier post, this is a common misconception not supported by facts.

From http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commb...m#_ftnref3 :

In conclusion, trends in cannabis use in the Netherlands are rather similar to those in other European countries, and Dutch figures on cannabis use are not out of line with those from countries that did not decriminalise cannabis. The U.S. figures consistently appear to be higher then those in the Netherlands. Over time prevalence of cannabis use show a wave-like trend in many countries, including the Netherlands. This supports Reuband’s earlier conclusion that trends cannabis use evolve rather independently from drug policy, and that countries with a ‘liberal’ cannabis policy do not have higher or lower rates than countries with a more repressive policy.[Reuband, 1995].

Consequently, it is unlikely that decriminalization of cannabis will cause an increase in cannabis use.

As a result, legalization of marijuana would harm the public health with only minimal gain (among that tiny percentage who might find medical gains, and medical use could be approved without general legalization, perhaps, under certain conditions).

I'd call the freedom to possess and purchase cannabis without worrying about legal repercussions is more than a minimal gain. I find cannabis to be a healthier alternative to alcohol, and hence, it would benefit the population to give people a better choice in terms of choosing intoxicants.

For instance, Prohibition. While everyone thinks of the speakeasies and illegally made liquor, what isn't as well known is the fact that during prohibition, the number of people using alchohol, and the number abusing it, fell dramatically. The federal government eventually gave up because of public pressures and the impossible task of policing it all in a state of increased criminal activity to serve the people who would not give up alchohol, but overall, drunkenness and alchohol abuse rates dropped appreciably. Once it was legalized again, they began to go back up.

Perhaps, but if you look at the statistics, it shows that rates of drug usage have slightly gone up since the War on Drugs was put into action.

Anyway... legalization might well decrease the criminal activities surrounding the marijuana trade, but it would increase the numbers of people using the drug dramatically, and that would NOT be a good thing.

Not so. Like I've shown, rates of cannabis usage in Amsterdam are less than those in the United States and England.

Perhaps look into whether it could actually work in certain medical situations (I am far from convinced that there is proof that it's actually needed (that is, that nothing else could help), and set up a legal procedure for those people to get marijuana in a way that would not support crime (buying it on the street and supporting whatever gangs or criminal groups were involved in its production, transportation, and sale), but don't generally legalize.

Did you even look at the response I gave to you? There have been numerous scientific studies proving marijuana's medicinal value. Montel Williams, who believes that recreational usage of marijuana should NOT be legalized, is a medical marijuana user and swears by its effectiveness. Medical marijuana is not a Trojan horse for legalization.

I remember when a few years ago I had a roommate (idiot...)... every weekend he went out with his friends and did marijuana or alchohol (not 21 yet) or both, whatever. He got in trouble with the law once that year (him and his genius friends were on something and decided to enter someone's open room and take something in it. They got caught.) and again later on (after that school year, for smoking marijuana on Main Street, I believe... smart, that!).

Your former-roommate is an idiot. It's not hard to exercise basic caution in keeping cannabis smoking on the down-low, and he failed miserably. Don't use him as a point-of-reference for all marijuana users. I've never been caught with cannabis.

If I hadn't already been strongly opposed to drug use, that would have done it, I expect...

Done what? Opened the gateway to your failure at life for experimenting with an illicit drug? Clarification is needed...

that wasn't my point, though. My point was this -- the whole mindset of "wow, I don't remember what we were doing last night at all, isn't that awesome" makes absolutely no sense to me. You forget what you were doing... so that's a GOOD thing? Uh, isn't that pretty obviously BAD, not good? Yup.

I generally forget more of what went on as a result of drinking, rather than smoking. With smoking, it's easy to remember what occurred, because it doesn't kill my brain and put me out-of-control. I don't generally like getting incapacitated either, or having to apologize for my behavior and feeling embarrassed the next day.

From what I've been reading, the reduced risks are not exactly what you might think. It does not cause emphyzima, but it does have numerous carcinogens.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...l=pubmed_docsum

From wikipedia:

Cannabis smoke contains numerous carcinogens[6][7][8], however scientific studies have failed to show higher cancer rates in cannabis smokers. A study published in 2006 by Donald Tashkin of the University of California, Los Angeles, the largest study of its kind, concluded there is no link between smoking cannabis and lung cancer. [36]A study published in 2006 on a large population sample (1,200 people with lung, neck, or head cancer, and a matching group of 1,040 without cancer) failed to positively correlate a lung cancer risk, in fact the results indicated a slight negative correlation between long and short-term cannabis use and cancer, suggesting a possible therapeutic effect. Cellular studies and even some studies in animal models suggest that THC has antitumor properties, either by encouraging programmed cell death of genetically damaged cells that can become cancerous, or by restricting the development of the blood supply that feeds tumors.[37] Prior, a 1997 study examining the records of 64,855 Kaiser patients (14,033 of whom identified themselves as current smokers), also found no positive correlation between cannabis use and cancer.[38] A Research Triangle Institute study concluded that THC, a dilative agent, may help cleanse the lungs by dilating the bronchi, and could actively reduce the instance of tumors.[39] Additionally, a study by Rosenblatt et al. found no association between marijuana use and the development of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.[40]

Further, more studies DO in fact show reduced reaction times among other cognitive deficiencies. It can be extrapolated that people driving while high are probably about as dangerous as people driving while tired, another dangerous activity (which is legal, but I'd say that's mainly because it's very hard to test for "tiredness". Certainly risking your own life is fine but the line is drawn when you decide to risk other's lives because, you have to get your car home, right? I mean, what do you expect me to take a bus? YOU take a bus!).

That's true, but I'm simply pointing out that it's a logical fallacy to state that cannabis should be kept illegal because people may drive under its influence, when its influence isn't as deadly as a drunk driver behind the wheel. I don't generally make it a practice to drive under the influence unless it's an emergency (and besides, I live in the city, so everything's within walking distance anyway).

Anecdotally, I can say that the one time I've played against some people that actually were high (a rare find with the people I hang out with, and actually I haven't seen these people in years), their abilities sank while their confidence in their abilities rose. The game was Super Smash Bros. Melee. Anyway again that's just a personal anecdote.

Did you play them while sober, and again while they were high? They could have been poor players to begin with. Melee players like to blow their abilities out of proportion, and the problem is, they're often oblivious to their true level of skill as a result of usually only playing with one group of people.

It also depends on how much they smoke. I usually only smoke enough to get a buzz if I'm playing a game, not enough to put me on my ass (though cannabis "putting me on my ass" is a rarity nowadays anyway).

Though there is this study:

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannab..._driving4.shtml

From that website:

As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small.

I'm not saying that getting high and driving is harmless, but I am trying to point out that the level of impairment one experiences is dramatically lower than that of alcohol.

And for the record, philosophy? I'm sure you had a great time saying things like "what if god is INSIDE us?" or "no I mean like, REALLY inside us" or "yeah... what? no right", but I'd like to hear something using logic (or maybe you have "other ways of knowing") come out of that.

I'm glad you were present to know the level of intelligence in which I spoke. I don't have any studies to prove this one (and I doubt any exist), so there's no way practical way to convince you.

Anyway, don't drive high. Just don't. It may be debatable if it should be illegal, and I really don't care much if you have this hobby as you call it, but certainly it's wrong to endanger someone ELSE and I'm in full support of the law in that regard. No hypothetical "well MAYBE I drive more catiously because I know I'm high" nonsense either.

From the link you provided:

Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate where they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort.

The evidence says one thing, you have reduced ability, and unless you have something better than hypothetical reasons why that might not apply while driving, well, just don't drink and drive, drive while very tired, or get high and drive. In all three instances, what's giving a few hours to lose the effects going to do? Even if there's a sudden emergency in the family, that's not worth the risk. You aren't going to be doing the surgery or investigation or extinguising the fire or whatever yourself, so you aren't needed. You can deal with the emotional whatevers later.

What if it's urgent that a person is rushed to a hospital, and waiting for an ambulance might compromise the ill person's health? Not everything is black-and-white, but generally, I agree with that sentiment.

Oh, you'll need to show some sort of evidence that this whole "turning off your brain" thing is actually a good thing for mental stability (emotions are PART of mentallity, they need not be mentioned seperatly). I do that anyway, and it's called sleep. Aside from that, I really just can't shut off my brain and I'm really not sure I want to. I enjoy thinking about things constantly myself, not that I can help it. Indeed, I can't really stay on a single topic for very long periods of time either.

It's common sense that relaxation is helpful towards emotional fulfillment. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, and all that. Do you really want me to search for a study to prove this?

How do you justify comparing marijuana to sleeping, or "turning off your brain" as you put it, aside from a few slightly impaired cognitive abilities? I can do just about anything high that I can while sober: play the guitar, play video games, watch movies, etc. It doesn't make me forget things, but rather, helps me relax while thinking about and doing the exact same things. I could have held this exact same debate while under cannabis's influence.

[Weltall]

It's not like turning your brain off, be it cannabis or alcohol, if it's moderated. Two beers, or a joint, and you just have your brain tethered to the earth instead of planted.

I think it's quite a nice feeling myself, though I haven't smoked in a very long time.

[Sacred Jellybean]

When you make statements comparing it to shutting off your brain, this is where the "don't knock it until you've tried it" complaint comes in. :) Would you benefit from reading a book on riding a bike in the same way that you would when actually riding it?

R-(Triple T!!)-an: If you're ever in the area, I'll smoke you out.

[Dark Jaguar]

I wasn't really making the jump to "turning off your brain", I was talking about relaxation using an expression. I'm disarming the idea that you would need that to relax. Emotions are good to keep under control though. Panic is dangerous, and all that. (On a lighter note, it's fun being in a family with so many emotionally driven sorts, by which I mean they "feel" their way through situations, by which I mean there's lots of really idiotic misunderstandinds and shouting matches and bad decisions involving health care.

Anyway, I don't know what you philosophize about, I was just joking. It basically stems from the fact I've never heard a single philosophic comment that wasn't just totally full of itself and of no actual merit to anyone.

I'm pretty sure an ambulance can get you to that hospital a lot faster than your own car. I know I'd rather call one than trust an intoxicated friend to get me there. Here's a fun one. The thing is, if you didn't DO drugs, you would ALWAYS be in a good condition to drive. I can toss that whole "what if there was a medical emergency" scenario right back at you. It's one of those "reversible arguments". Like, when someone says "I don't get why you don't just lend me your liscene! It's not a big deal!" vs "I don't get why you just NEED me to give this to you. It's no big deal.".

MONTEL WILLIAMS swears by it? Well he's a BRILLIANT scientist! I mean he certainly knows what he's talking about, he has ACCURATE psychic Sylvia Brown on every week after all!

Anyway, the medicinal effect is basically pain relief. I know you want it to be a miracle drug. I mean, lazyfatbum is convinced that beer is the secret of "finding yourself" and wine drinkers sure love reminding me that wine can help lower blood pressure (which is certainly worth the destroyed liver).

Again, I don't really mind if you do this. I find it weird that you keep calling it "cannabis". I don't mind calling it by slang.

At any rate, as I said my example was pure anecdote, which is of course not based in evidence at all. That's why I linked to that report. I already said it isn't as strong an effect, or really very close at all, to that of driving drunk.

[Sacred Jellybean]

I'm disarming the idea that you would need that to relax.

I don't recall ever stating that I NEED it to relax. However, I prefer it to relax.

Emotions are good to keep under control though. Panic is dangerous, and all that.

It's also sometimes good to experience thought patterns an atypical fashion . Panic and dangerous emotions running out-of-control has never been a problem for me.

I'm pretty sure an ambulance can get you to that hospital a lot faster than your own car.

It depends on the distance, and other factors.

I know I'd rather call one than trust an intoxicated friend to get me there. Here's a fun one. The thing is, if you didn't DO drugs, you would ALWAYS be in a good condition to drive. I can toss that whole "what if there was a medical emergency" scenario right back at you. It's one of those "reversible arguments". Like, when someone says "I don't get why you don't just lend me your liscene! It's not a big deal!" vs "I don't get why you just NEED me to give this to you. It's no big deal.".

It was admittedly a lame example to begin with.

MONTEL WILLIAMS swears by it? Well he's a BRILLIANT scientist! I mean he certainly knows what he's talking about, he has ACCURATE psychic Sylvia Brown on every week after all!

I don't know anything of his schedule of guests, having no interest in seeing him myself. However, why is it that a user of a particular pain reliever must be a doctor to most accurately know which medication works most efficiently for him? After all, if he reported to his doctor problems he was experiencing with medication A, the doctor would simply prescribe medication B. It doesn't matter if it's Montel Williams or someone much less notorious. I was simply trying to point out a popular example of an ill person who reportedly receives the best results from using marijuana as a medication.

Anyway, the medicinal effect is basically pain relief.

That, and increasing appetite.

I know you want it to be a miracle drug.

To be quite honest, it doesn't matter much to me whether it has medical value or not. There's strong enough evidence to show that it's level of harm hardly merits legislation banning it, particularly when there are much more destructive, legal alternatives. I was simply trying to dispel the myth that marijuana has no medicinal value, and that currently legal, prescription drugs will ALWAYS be superior. It may be more anecdotal evidence, but the fact that it's a personal testimony (similar to those witnessed by others who use medical marijuana) and not "a friend of a friend" helps it carry a bit more weight.

Again, I don't really mind if you do this. I find it weird that you keep calling it "cannabis". I don't mind calling it by slang.

Certain terms, ("pot", in particular) have negative connatations attached to them. "Cannabis" has a nice ring to it, and it's the scientific name, making it seem like I'm smart!

[Sacred Jellybean]

DJ: If you feel a doctor's testament to the medical benefits of cannabis is more convincing, allow me to quote a physician on the subject.

In every life there occur seminal events that modify the seemingly established trajectory of one's personal history. For me, three of the four big ones were, in chronological order, the decision to go to medical school, the extraordinary good fortune of meeting the woman I married, and the gift of children. The fourth was my improbable encounter with cannabis, an event that divided my life into two eras; the before cannabis era, and the cannabis era (my son David refers to these phases of my life as BC and AD for before cannabis and after dope). My cannabis era began to unfold in 1967. As the senior author of a book on schizophrenia, I found myself with what I estimated would be two to three relatively free months before my co-authors would finish their chapters. Because I had become concerned that so many young people were using the terribly dangerous drug marijuana, I decided to use the time to review the medical literature so that I could write a reasonably objective and scientifically sound paper on the harmfulness of this substance. Young people were ignoring the warnings of the government, but perhaps some would seriously consider a well-documented review of the available data. So I began my systematic review of the medical and scientific literature bearing on the toxicity -- mental and physical -- of marijuana. It never occurred to me then that there were other dimensions of this drug that warranted exploration.

During my initial foray into this literature I discovered, to my astonishment, that I had to seriously question what I believed I knew about cannabis. As I began to appreciate that what I thought I understood was largely based on myths, old and new, I realized how little my training in science and medicine had protected me against this misinformation. I had become not just a victim of a disinformation campaign, but because I was a physician, one of its agents as well.

http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/001.html

This is an excerpt from one of the many essays written by Dr. Lester Grinspoon, a medical marijuana advocate who initially set out to write an objective paper on the harms of <strike>cannabis</strike>marijuana.