Marijuana And You

[Koko]

If you still haven't watched The Union documentary, at least give it a chance.

If you really think D.A.R.E. was giving you the whole picture, spend at least 10-15 minutes and listen to the voice of reason & humanity.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?...on&emb=0&aq=f#

 

[ThatNickGuy]

I've started watching The Union, from your first posting of the link, actually. Won't be able to finish watching it before work, but I will. I fully admit to not being informed about it because, honestly?

I don't see the NEED for it. I don't understand why people would want to lose control of themselves so much. Now, this is speaking as someone that has a beer once in awhile, BUT, I've never gotten drunk to the point of stumbling, puking, forgetting, etc. I did post drunk once and I feel like an ass about it.

...ugh, this is making me sound like a hypocrite. I rarely drink, however. Maybe once every two months, if that. And I've only even started drinking at all in the last year or so.

Of course, I also don't drink caffeine (don't drink pop anymore and hate coffee).

I don't remember where I was going with this, now. My argument's basically killed because I admit to drinking.

I guess my point is that I don't lump pot in with alcohol; I lump it in with cigarette smoking. There's no secondhand smoke from drinking. Unless they're behind the wheel of a car, someone drinking in front of me has no direct effect on me. Someone smoking in front of me, regardless of what it is, hurts my ability to breathe.

Time to go to work. Flame away. I can already tell I'm not making any sense.

---------- Post added at 09:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 PM ----------

I meant her side of the argument, as far as talking about what the health benefits are for smoking pot.

*sigh* Never mind.

 

[Calleja]

A wildly drunken guy is 10x more likely to attack you than a sober guy, agreed? Alcohol brings forth some nasty shit in people. People have murdered, raped, looted, cheated on spouses... the list goes on. You get my point... there's a reason why there's such a crime as "drunk and disorderly".

A pot smoker, aside from that oh so dangerous second hand smoke, won't harm you. On that documentary Koko linked they interview a retired Police Chief, and he said he could not recall ONE incident of someone comitting a crime while only high. Frankie, a police officer himself, posted in the first page of this very thread something he's said before... legalization would make his job much easier. It's just an effect of marijuana.. it mellows you out, violence is like.. the last thing on your mind.

So, there, a reason why alcohol consumers pose more of a threat to you than pot.

Should alcohol be prohibited now? Again?

 

[ThatGrinningIdiot!]

So, there, a reason why alcohol consumers pose more of a threat to you than pot.

Should alcohol be prohibited now? Again?

Yes.

 

[Bubble181]

Calleja - it'd perfectly possible to overdose on marijuhana. It's hard to do so based on just smoking, but eating or ingesting it are great ways of putting way too much MJ in your body before it has time to react. I've had to ship off friends to the hospital for poisoning, and it was purely because of brownies. Ask AmE if you see her next time; quite a few people in the Netherlands have been hospitalized because of overdosing. It's rarely lethal (though it's happened), but saying you can't overdose is silly, especially for one who has looked into it.

Also, I can understand where Nick'ds coming from. I'm a left libertarian and all that, but I'm a strong believer in "your freedom ends where mine begins". It's illegal to play music so loud it damages the ears of passers-by; it's illegal to burn noxious substances in the open air because the smoke can cause health issues; it's illegal to do plenty of things because of their effects on others. Smoking (weed or tobacco) in some places IS a bad thing because of the effect on others. Ho far you tihnk this should go is another matter, but I, for one, am glad smoking tobacco's illegal in train cars, at work, in hospitals,... over here, and I'm a fan of making it illegal to smoke in bars and restaurants, as well, except for designated areas. *shrug*

 

[Koko]

P.S.
The documentary is avaliable on Netflix's list of online streaming movies.
It has a 4.8/5 rating :clap:

 

[Cuyval Dar]

A wildly drunken guy is 10x more likely to attack you than a sober guy, agreed? Alcohol brings forth some nasty shit in people. People have murdered, raped, looted, cheated on spouses... the list goes on. You get my point... there's a reason why there's such a crime as \"drunk and disorderly\".

A pot smoker, aside from that oh so dangerous second hand smoke, won't harm you. On that documentary Koko linked they interview a retired Police Chief, and he said he could not recall ONE incident of someone comitting a crime while only high. Frankie, a police officer himself, posted in the first page of this very thread something he's said before... legalization would make his job much easier. It's just an effect of marijuana.. it mellows you out, violence is like.. the last thing on your mind.

So, there, a reason why alcohol consumers pose more of a threat to you than pot.

Should alcohol be prohibited now? Again?

It isn't actually "Drunk and Disorderly". The real charge is typically Public Intoxication.
And Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intoxication)
include Cannabis Intoxication as part of its definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intoxication

 

[crono1224]

still illegal to drive while high.

This is going no where fast, alcohol is bad for the system but by saying that since that is legal marijuana should be is silly.

Also: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090202175105.htm

May not mean much but I am pretty sure everything in excess can be damaging, whether or not it is any more than say massive hairspray usage in the 80's?

Also I am for legalization assuming it and tabacco smoke bans pass, I really don't want to smell that shit when i am out.

 

[Le Quack]

K.
Study:
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/142271/smoking_marijuana_does_not_cause_lung_cancer/

Smoking marijuana does not cause lung cancer. It shows how the other studys were manipluated to fit a political bias.

Smoking pot doesn't cause lung cancer. In fact, the study found that cigarette smokers who also smoked marijuana were at a lower risk of contracting lung cancer than tobacco-only smokers.

Federal Research in 2007
Marijuana prevents cancer
http://www.smokedot.org/blog/07/10/11/marijuana-prevents-cancer-(federal-research)

The Government provided funding to Federal researchers to study the effect of THC on Cancer induced rats. These rats were treated for Leukemia and lung cancer with canaboids and THC found in Marijuana that increased their life span and decreased the size of the tumors. (Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sept. 1975. p. 597-602)

Oh, so now THC could be a possible lead for curing cancer?


Marijuana is healthy for you.

Did I just defeat arguments here? or did I just defeat arguments here.

 

[Le Quack]

With a 30+ year old case study? Hardly.

Did you read the first one?
It corresponds with the other. Also, using fire to keep yourself warm is also an old idea. I'm sure it's wrong too.

 

[AshburnerX]

A single study does not disprove the results of hundreds of others, Quack. If it did, the peer review process of Science wouldn't be necessary. When you can bring up another hundred cases to counter the thousands upon thousands of studies that say Marijuana has severe negative effects, then you can arrogantly claim to "defeat arguments". Besides, most of the negative effects that we associate with Marijuana is caused by inhaling it. That's because your BREATHING IN SMOKE, which damages the microscopic air sacs in your lungs. You may potentially have less of a chance of getting Cancer from smoking MJ, but you still have a great chance of getting emphysema.

Also, don't fucking call it a possible cure for cancer. At best, they can claim that THC can help reduce the effects of said disease. There will NEVER be a cure-all for an illness that has so many different causes, symptoms, and can manifest in so different ways. The simply call things like this "cures for cancer" because it sounds better than "a potential treatment to stop this very specific type of cancer."

 

[Le Quack]

A single study does not disprove the results of hundreds of others, Quack. If it did, the peer review process of Science wouldn't be necessary. When you can bring up another hundred cases to counter the thousands upon thousands of studies that say Marijuana has severe negative effects, then you can arrogantly claim to "defeat arguments". Besides, most of the negative effects that we associate with Marijuana is caused by inhaling it. That's because your BREATHING IN SMOKE, which damages the microscopic air sacs in your lungs. You may potentially have less of a chance of getting Cancer from smoking MJ, but you still have a great chance of getting emphysema.

Also, don't fucking call it a possible cure for cancer. At best, they can claim that THC can help reduce the effects of said disease. There will NEVER be a cure-all for an illness that has so many different causes, symptoms, and can manifest in so different ways. The simply call things like this "cures for cancer" because it sounds better than "a potential treatment to stop this very specific type of cancer."

Its not just a single study, but what it does prove is that you can't trust the studies. Therefore you can't say its harmful to your health. Nobody knows.


Also, I am only acting self righteous because you are. Who are you to come in and say that you are right and everyone else is wrong? There's just as much evidence that it can help reduce sypmtoms of cancer, and doesn't cause it. Yet, you choose to ignore those and just reffer to the "thousands of other studies." I can find just as many studies that say I'm right and you are wrong. Does that make me right?

Its not just the smoke that makes tobacco dangerous, it is all the other carcinogens in tobacco. There might be traces of those chemicals in MJ, but they aren't anywhere near dangerous cancer causing levels like that of tobacco.

I even read a study that said marijuana improves cell regeneration in lungs, which means repairing of the microscopic air sacs.

Stick that in your pipe and don't smoke it.

Just because you were brain washed and choose to believe crazy right wing government fear monger info, and I don't, doesn't mean you have a license to ride me down. You are in the wrong here. Marijuana is a valuable plant to the human race, and it's cousin the hemp plant has many MANY more productive uses that marijuana has. Legalization would make college campuses safer and remove all dirty black market connections.

The drugs didn't make the laws and give the social stigmas that they carry today. The Laws making MJ illegal made it bad for you. The laws made MJ only something stupid burnouts do. The laws are what make you biased.


Don't give me none of your bullshit about pot, because your shit doesn't smell like roses.

 

[AshburnerX]

Its not just the smoke that makes tobacco dangerous, it is all the other carcinogens in tobacco. There might be traces of those chemicals in MJ, but they aren't anywhere near dangerous cancer causing levels like that of tobacco.

I even read a study that said marijuana improves cell regeneration in lungs, which means repairing of the microscopic air sacs.

Emphysema is an irreversible degenerative condition. Air Sacs do not regenerate once collapsed, and if you are honestly going to claim that breathing in SMOKE is GOOD for your lungs, you need to do more research. Perhaps ingesting it has that effect, but any positive effects the smoke would have had would have been negated by the damage the smoke itself caused.

At best you can try to manage the symptoms, but once the damage has been done, it's done. My father is living proof of this.

Just because you were brain washed and choose to believe crazy right wing government fear monger info, and I don't, doesn't mean you have a license to ride me down. You are in the wrong here.

I'm not claiming that pot smoking is going to lead into people into scenes straight out of fucking Reefer Madness here. I'm merely pointing out that your wrong when you claim the Marijuana is some magical plant that doesn't cause illness in those who use it (at least as far as smokers go). You are patently wrong in this regard, for very obvious medical reasons.

Marijuana is a valuable plant to the human race, and it's cousin the hemp plant has many MANY more productive uses that marijuana has. Legalization would make college campuses safer and remove all dirty black market connections.

Once again, I point to my earlier statements in the thread: I'm actually for legalization and exactly for the reasons you posted. I don't care if people smoke it in the privacy of their own homes and think the current state of the drug laws are asinine. I only got self righteous when you were claiming to have defeated an argument on flimsy evidence at best, by showing a study that wasn't just out of date, but goes against the majority of similar studies from around the world. When a study gets results that aren't repeatable by others consistently, THAT is a sign of a fraudulent or flawed study.

But you go ahead and claim bias and conspiracy...

 

[ZenMonkey]

All I would like to say here is that there tends to be a bias in the news towards studies that come from government institutions (which in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing), and the government still has cannabis classified as a Schedule 1 drug. These inevitably negative results are then fed to the AP, CNN, etc.

This isn't a conspiracy theory. This is just the way it happens; it's the same for stories about the NIH making breakthroughs in cancer research. It just so happens that in this case, the government does have a vested interest in keeping people educated mainly or solely on the negative effects of cannabis. Studies that take place in other countries that point to positive effects just don't tend to be as widely reported upon in general news. (I'm not talking about the kind of news we Internet info junkies get.)

So when you consider how many studies there have been, please also consider the sources you are or aren't hearing about. And when you read a study, think about the methodologies used. There was a recent one that supposedly proved one thing or another, but if you read more about it, it turns out you'd have to be someone who smoked something like 10 joints a day every day for years in order for it to be relevant. That kind of thing.

Keep an open mind and apply critical thinking to both sides of the argument, is my advice. Thank you. You may have this soapbox back now.

 

[Calleja]

Thank you Zen, I was hoping you would poke your finger on that one.

 

[crono1224]

I think atleast for me that it hardly is a null drug or postive, but isn't anywhere close to what has been told and said. With several studies and the general fact that anything in excess is bad for you, i would naturally assume that it is also bad for you in some way or form, even if it isn't as bad as other things. They do need to lower it off of being a cat 1 drug, i was slightly suprised when i saw how high it is. The real question is whats more likely legalization, decriminalization or some sort of step down to legalization.

Also I don't get why people are like cops wish it was legal, they are hardly a moral compass, to judge it by, and more than likely prefer not having to do paperwork over something some of them consider menial and either harmless or only self destructive.

 

[Denbrought]

Also I don't get why people are like cops wish it was legal, they are hardly a moral compass, to judge it by, and more than likely prefer not having to do paperwork over something some of them consider menial and either harmless or only self destructive.

Nah, cops prefer to not be shot dead in a drug war that they don't even believe in.

Also, since when does copper morality have anything to do with taking drugs?

 

[crono1224]

Nah, cops prefer to not be shot dead in a drug war that they don't even believe in.

Also, since when does copper morality have anything to do with taking drugs?

I was merely stating using them as a reference for legality is pointless cause i don't think they carry any more weight than anyone else.

I figured they were just more lazy about something they see as either a victimless crime or harmless, since I'm not sure on the number of murders from purely marijuana drug sales.

 

[Tiq]

Been high once. Was a pretty fun sensation, but I avoid it for certain reasons... I have an addictive personality, and tend to avoid stuff that I know I could so easily get hooked on.


Still don't see any good reason not to legalise it.

 

[Denbrought]

I was merely stating using them as a reference for legality is pointless cause i don't think they carry any more weight than anyone else.

I figured they were just more lazy about something they see as either a victimless crime or harmless, since I'm not sure on the number of murders from purely marijuana drug sales.

They're good for use as reference because they are organized (leap, etc.) and look into studies, statistics, etc. It's a good source of information.

I haven't heard of a cop movement for the legalization of marijuana only, but rather of all drugs.
No idea on the statistics for kills related to marijuana (maybe a halforumite policeman can has?) but with stuff like this you'd never know--traffic stops hardly sound like risk situations, but they are.

 

[Koko]

Been high once. Was a pretty fun sensation, but I avoid it for certain reasons... I have an addictive personality, and tend to avoid stuff that I know I could so easily get hooked on.


Still don't see any good reason not to legalise it.

Cannabis is habituating, but not technically physically addictive.

Which goes to say a heavy user can stop cold turkey with no physical detrimental effects.

Long term use can cause detrimental mental effects from stopping cold turkey, but are strictly temporary and does no long term damage.


The "all things in moderation" saying applies to everything

---------- Post added at 08:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:17 AM ----------

They're good for use as reference because they are organized (leap, etc.) and look into studies, statistics, etc. It's a good source of information.

I haven't heard of a cop movement for the legalization of marijuana only, but rather of all drugs.
No idea on the statistics for kills related to marijuana (maybe a halforumite policeman can has?) but with stuff like this you'd never know--traffic stops hardly sound like risk situations, but they are.

140,000 men and women are killed every year directly from cigarettes, alcohol, and prescription pills, while, "…there is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented marijuana induced death” (DEA Judge Francis Young).

Mexico alone has had over 4,500 deaths related to illegal drug dealing last year (with mexcio being the largest foreign source of marijuana), 700 of which in the border town of Tijuana, making it one of the most dangerous cities in the world

 

[Calleja]

:uhhuh:

 

[Frank]

Also I don't get why people are like cops wish it was legal, they are hardly a moral compass, to judge it by, and more than likely prefer not having to do paperwork over something some of them consider menial and either harmless or only self destructive.

Nah, cops prefer to not be shot dead in a drug war that they don't even believe in.

Also, since when does copper morality have anything to do with taking drugs?

Yes.

Also paperwork thing. I've made no bones about admitting that I'd prefer marijuana to be legal for the fact that I wouldn't have to arrest people nearly as often. Luckily most people usually have little enough of it on them that all I have to do is dispose of it and let them go.

 

[Philosopher B.]

Never had a run-in with the weed. Think it should be legal, though. The drug war is a damned joke.

 

[Silvanesti]

I do not know a god damned thing about the health impact of marijuana, other people know it better and I think they've already made the case and given the info.

But the social aspect?

As I see it, the current ban on pot is no different the alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. And how well did that end up? It funded illegal activity, caused many deaths, and fucked up the way the majority of americans consume alcohol now (getting drunk as quick as possible). And best of all, it didn't even help. People were still getting drunk.

You don't like being around pot or the smell of pot? just leave. what the hell happened to personal responsibility? Why is it the governments job to make sure nothing offends you.

---------- Post added at 10:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 PM ----------

Never had a run-in with the weed. Think it should be legal, though. The drug war is a damned joke.

Essentially, this.

 

[crono1224]

You don't like being around pot or the smell of pot? just leave. what the hell happened to personal responsibility? Why is it the governments job to make sure nothing offends you.

Yes cause its the other persons need to leave cause someone is actively creating a stinky enviroment, where is he personal responsibility and general niceness of the other person to not light up or what ever around the other person.

Its not like they moved into a house next to a tar plant. In fact it could be possible they were hanging out somewhere and the person came in and started doing it.

 

[ThatGrinningIdiot!]

Yes cause its the other persons need to leave cause someone is actively creating a stinky enviroment, where is he personal responsibility and general niceness of the other person to not light up or what ever around the other person.

Its not like they moved into a house next to a tar plant. In fact it could be possible they were hanging out somewhere and the person came in and started doing it.

So does farting, bad breath, and poor hygiene. Not much you can do about those.

 

[crono1224]

So does farting, bad breath, and poor hygiene. Not much you can do about those.

Its so true :'(.

 

[Silvanesti]

Yes cause its the other persons need to leave cause someone is actively creating a stinky enviroment,

yes. if you don't like it, then leave or ask to stop. how hard is that? Do you honestly believe it is worth all the cost and loss of life that the current ban creates just so someone doesn't have to smell something stinky?

I hate the smell of pot. At a couple recent concerts I've been lucky enough to be right next to a bunch of stoners passing a small glass pipe. That shit smelt like a skunk fucked a pile rotten eggs. But when it started to annoy me, I just went to an area that I couldn't smell it.

where is he personal responsibility and general niceness of the other person to not light up or what ever around the other person.

Its not like they moved into a house next to a tar plant. In fact it could be possible they were hanging out somewhere and the person came in and started doing it.

I agree, it is responsible and polite not to light up shit next to someone that isn't. But it shouldn't be the governments job to enforce that.

 

[crono1224]

I am for legalization but banning it in public places in the same as tobacco smoke, I assumed you were saying it is ok if I am out to dinner and someone lights up that i should have to finish dinner quickly to leave.

 

[Silvanesti]

I am for legalization but banning it in public places in the same as tobacco smoke, I assumed you were saying it is ok if I am out to dinner and someone lights up that i should have to finish dinner quickly to leave.

No, of course not. If someone were to do that I would agree that they were being a prick. But there was the argument earlier that it should be banned because it smells.

 

[crono1224]

No, of course not. If someone were to do that I would agree that they were being a prick. But there was the argument earlier that it should be banned because it smells.

Oh then sorry I was for banning like tobacco smoke in public places.

 

[AshburnerX]

There is a reason why many bars and restaurants are doing away with the smoking sections and just making the whole place no smoking: A majority of the people who go to these places are fucking tired of the smell and secondhand smoke.

 

[crono1224]

Agreed but luckily we get people chain smoking out front that you happily have to walk through, granted its not exactly stuck in it, but still very annoying.

 

[Le Quack]

There is a reason why many bars and restaurants are doing away with the smoking sections and just making the whole place no smoking: A majority of the people who go to these places are fucking tired of the smell and secondhand smoke.

So your argument shifted from a health issue to inconvenience?

Its good to know you respect small business rights, and the right of an individual to make decisions for themselves.