Marijuana.com

kizzman

You can claim you are not exaggerating, but I said nothing of the sort. And it would do you well to know that the human mind is not stupid in my opinion, but instead so adaptively powerful that its vulnerable to dangerous tendencies. But that's irrelevant anyway, since I never actually said that the goernment needs to lead people like "sheep."

Very well. Though I do not agree with your reason - I think it is false - I will let you argue what you will.

Still, if eradication is not possible, preventative measures are. We have never, and probably won't ever, eradicate crims such as murder and rape, but that does not mean we should stop fighting.
Elimination of the plant is a small part of any efforts to fight recreational cannabis smoke. I think making it "extinct" is unnecessary.

Precisely. Prohibition is young and has been mishandled in the past. False propaganda and forceul, abrupt changes are not necessary. I believe new scientifically reviewed research into drugs and amplification of their adversities are going to be the key to future success.

Marijuana, as I have suggested, is not the only problem. But I think it is a big one, if only because of the "it's harmless and is not addictive" misconception that seems to preceed it.

You will find that what a good historian would say is that prohibition was handled incorrectly. Historians are meant to give accounts in an unbiased manner, and, retrospectively, alcohol was far too popular and the prohibitional measure were far too abrupt for criminalization to work.

So you claim. Numbers rise with population increase, and influence extended with immigrational surges and mass production capabilities. I'll get to my sources as soon as I can, but with them offhand, all I can tell you is that the acceptability of marijuana among youths has declined slightly in recent years.

I see. And from where do these facts hail? Sources? Statistics? Numbers? And yes, early prohibition efforts would probably have expense and slow immediate alterational abilities. But once the program has taken root, and if the public is educated, success is inevitable.
And these are facts? May I ask for a source again? You've conjured up some mighty speculation, my friend. Also, I must reiterate, I believe any drug with medicinal value should be examined as a candidate for future treatment options.

And, if a drug has medicinal value, then I think it should be researched, regulated, and perscribed. But this is not related to recreational use.

The problem is, an entire nation's population can not be trusted to be responsible all the time.

Of course, "back then" (You have given a historical tone to all this), investigative teams would not be capable of deciphering crime scene codes as well as they can now. Today, detectives (To name them simply) can evaluate cases to extents never seen before. Drugs can now be connected to crimes, since we know alot more about them. Such connections might have gone unnoticed quite often in the 19th century.

Not completely. It's a shift in the scales on adversity's side. Smoking anything at all is, as I've pointed out before (I think I sourced it in my first big post on this thread), inherently dangerous. I may even have noted a study that discovered smoking marijuana to be more harmful to the respiratory system than the average cigarette, containing many more carcinogens.

Prohibition is a broad term. Properly handled prohibition can be effective, as any sort of anti-criminal efforts are.

But using drugs can harm others. The ripple effect is not easy to trace, but using a drug can unitentionally cause others, even if merely offered one, be more likely to succumb to pressure and use it themselves. There are many more communally harmful effects that I have posted before, such as increased risk for accidents. But I currently don't have the time to post anything more, so perhaps you'll settle to reread?

 

Viper420

How can I harm someone by smoking a joint while sitting in my Lazy Boy watching Cops?

I've seen studies that say that something in MJ blocks the damaging effects of those carcinogens. Plus you don't smoke 20 joints in a day but you can easily smoke 20 cigarettes in a day when you're addicted to cigarettes.

kizzman

Well, if you start describing very specific situations, then you might find certain circumstances that are not particularly harmful to anyone but yourself. But just because one person might be able to contain the damage does not mean an entire populace can. Smoking in front of anyone else and offering a joint is inherently likely to increase their chances of using it. This "spreads the damage," so to speak. There's also the harm brought to relationships by dependency; the drug can draw time away from people close to an individual if they are addicted.

I'm pretty sure I posted this earlier, too, but here it goes again:
"Several vehicular-like accidents have occured with drivers, conductors, or engineers found ignoring safety precautions while under the influence of marijuana. Take note of a 1987 derailment of an Amtrak passenger train, that killed 16 people and injured over 100. Authorities found that the engineer, under marijuana influence, ignored signals that might have averted the disaster (From The Encyclopedia of Psychoactive Drugs: Marijuana by Jack Mednelson, M.D., and Nancy Mello, Ph.D. 1992). Other railway accidents have been traced to similar marijuana-related causes."
Also:
A Kaiser study reveals that under the influence of marijuana, both males and females are more likely to be hospitalized to to accidents (Particularly in vehicles):
"Kaiser Health researchers have published a study showing that marijuana use is correlated with a significant increase in the risk of hospitalization due to injuries. The study, published in the April 2003 edition of the Annals of Epidemiology, covered 64,657 subjects from Northern California, of whom 13,971 were current marijuana users. Researchers found that among men, current marijuana users had a 28% higher rate of hospitalization due to injuries than non-users; among women, the increase was 37%. Results were adjusted for alcohol and tobacco use, as well as age, race, education, marital status and medical conditions."
http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/k...dentstudy.html


Can you find a source? It's difficult to find studies sometimes.

I think I posted this earlier:
Of course, chemical content varies widely from one batch of marijuana to the next (It is unregulated on the black market), but the scientists found that based on their samples marijuana causes five times more carbon monoxide to accumulate in the blood than smoking cigarettes does. They also found that three times more tar is inhaled and one-third more tar accumulates in the respiratory tract. As such, the potential respiratory damage of one marijuana joint was judged as similar to that of 5 cigarettes (From The Encyclopedia of Psychoactive Drugs: Marijuana by Jack Mednelson, M.D., and Nancy Mello, Ph.D. 1992)

Furthermore:
"A recent survey by the Kaiser Permanente Center found that daily marijuana-only smokers have a 19% higher rate of respiratory complaints than non-smokers."
http://detox-usa.com/marijuana.html

Viper420

Well isn't that what life is? A series of specific situations all running together.
I can smoke pot on my back porch and not be hurting anyone.
I can be sitting in bed with my wife sharing a joint and not be hurting anyone.
I can be reading my bible while smoking a joint and not be hurting anyone.
I can be reading Dr. Seuss while smoking a joint and not be hurting anyone.
Need I go on? The list is endless. While locked down in my fortress of solitude (the basement), I can get high on MJ and not be harming ANYONE.

Here is a link to an article that refutes the idea the MJ causes mental illness and can be used to treat mental illness as well as cancer.....Weed will make you insane?
I found this after 30 seconds of googling. Just ask the right questions and you'll get the right answers.

Gref

I'm all for the prohibition of ALL drugs. 18 and older, only.

 

KWhite

Food is nutritious and necessary, and marijuana, in fact any form of smoking, is not only nonbeneficial, but harmful.

Prove this please. empirically. I can show you independant studies that show benefits from the use of marijuana in areas as far apart as pain relief and nausea control. I've been searching for definitive, non biased studies that point out the actual harms attributed to cannabis and cannot seem to find them. Perhaps you will post what you have so I can gain some sort of insight into how you reach this conclusion. What I can point you to to is a Canadian lung specialist that said (paraphrased)

"After forty years of ever increasing use among the citizenry, we should be seeing large amounts of patients with lung disease caused by marijuana by now if it is truly there. Where are the bodies, that is what I am wondering?" NO use saying it just to strengthen your argument, the D.E.A. do that and well, we want a bit more proof.

Researchers found that among men, current marijuana users had a 28% higher rate of hospitalization due to injuries than non-users; among women, the increase was 37%. Results were adjusted for alcohol and tobacco use, as well as age, race, education, marital status and medical conditions.

Was fatigue looked at before they jumped on the obvious and completely non politically correct presence of marijuana? Also, the man was dead wrong to use it within eight hours of his shift, but what I am wondering is, given the certain number of users in this country and the time span between the present and your one, firm, example, is this enough cause to criminalize a nation? The man was already prohibited from using any drugs save approved prescription drugs contractually and legally, those laws exist, your example does not explain why I, who never drive a train and am responsible enough to never drive stoned need be relieved of rights given me by my Deity by a secular Government.

Will you criminalize fatigue and too many hours for train engineers, truck drivers and pilots as well?

This is not an exploration of one's own consciousness - using any recreational drug is putting one's mind at risk for damage, particularly if use continues. Legalizing recreational marijuana will innately increase dependency rates among other things.

It is an exploration of one's own consciousness, for me- and perhaps others, your naysaying of it does not give your opinion the weight of fact, especially in such a personal area.
I disagree and will tell you that I have explored many, many avenues of perception while using marijuana and gained insights that have made me, in my opinion, a better human. The Christian church, using them purely as an example, does not think that my Gods are gods or that my prayers to them are holy. Thank goodness they cannot imprison me for seeing things differently. You are convinced, but not convincing.

Authorities found that the engineer, under marijuana influence, ignored signals that might have averted the disaster (From The Encyclopedia of Psychoactive Drugs: Marijuana by Jack Mednelson, M.D., and Nancy Mello, Ph.D. 1992). Other railway accidents have been traced to similar marijuana-related causes.

We are incarcerating citizens on a "Might". The other railway accidents, would you be so kind as to post sources independant of your own work, and also- who funded that particular study, please.

I'm one of the dedicated, yet open to sound, logical arguments, so pray, convince me.

But you'd best stick to facts- I shall.

Kelly

__________________
"Your mind is your own, your body as well, from the soul we need not speak, tend it well, making those decisions you deem worthy, aware all responsibility is in your hands when the smoke clears" Kelly L. White

"It is a principle of natural justice that when bad men make bad laws, or when unprincipled authorities compromise good ones, citizens are justified in protecting themselves from the very authority that compromised law and order." Gandhi

Our Posting Guidelines

Jake

Alright....when has prohibition worked? Show me one case when any recreational drug has been removed from a population without the loss of their rights to liberty, life, and happiness?

I think the Opium Wars were historically the most successful example of prohibition...and that included dragging addicts from the houses and shooting them in front of their families....

also...
You cannot get away with that. You cannot compare smoking a joint with murdering a human being. You cannot compare sparking up a bowl to raping the holy vesicle of childbirth. That is just fucking insane, dude.

Damage to your own lungs....reversible damage, that is. "Damage" that may in fact slow down breast and lung cancer.

Compared to the irreversible removal of a human life?

Maybe your mind is a bit more closed than you think it is; maybe you've been a bit more influenced by government propaganda than you admit if you are equating murder with drug use...

__________________

KWhite

...sighs...before delving in.

Kizz- ya know what is so darned disheartening here? You speak to the inevitable harms of marijuana and you use these "Harms" to justify criminalizing anyone who has decided to take these harms onto themselves.
But you cannot prove them, these harms, bodily, social or mental, you and those who would keep prohibition going are very good at bandying polemic about, but I have yet to meet a single person from the opposition who will give me reputable proofs! In general, once we, the liberators, bring those studies that show our word is good, that we have science on our side, we are met with studies funded by biased parties, such as the D.E.A. or the Partnership for a drug free America- paid for by the largest conflict of interest consortium in existence, and you expect us to shut up and take them as unbiased fact.

We are the ones going to jail on bad, irresponsible legislation.

Once those biased studies are torn to shreds by ours, it takes about two posts, usually, and about three minutes of google and then we hear the hyperbole, polemic and racism come out.

We are not having it.

I will grant you one argument, but only for the sake of argument and only to continue this discussion.

If such/any substances that do such postulated ill are to be criminalized, if it is your conviction, do you lobby then for tobacco, alcohol or sugar to be banned and declared substances with a high level of abuse?
Normal conservative answer? "Well, no, think of the jobs!!! But who needs one more drug legal anyway?"

The hypocrisy abounds, it really begins to look as though you people fight so hard to ignore science and maintain the status quo because you are afraid of losing a beating boy.
After all, it is hard to sneer at an alcoholic whilst holding your fourth martini... difficult to feel superior..

"F**cking Doper"

Much easier to maintain that sense of moral superiority.

I've been doing a thing, I have been posting news items from both sides of the marijuana debate on several neutral boards over the last months. I wanted to guage reaction and I have to tell you- you folks are losing.

What I am seeing is about a 7- 3 divide. Seven in ten shout for the drug war to end, and many go beyond marijuana. We are wining this and it comes just as we predicted fifteen years ago when we were so scared to be doing what we are doing.

Even the police are on board, the debate is in precinct offices and squad cars- everywhere.

Major newspapers in Texas, Georgia, Florida, the U.K., Germany- have decried the senseless waste of resources and the erosion of civil rights that is the drug war.

I am a free man, it is my body and my choice. Never, ever, was the State to become my patriarch and I deny the state that right. I love the fact that you can argue without apparent heat- it adds much to my desire to debate this with you and others in a similar way. I also enjoy your posting of statisitcs and incidents as it gives me a chance to expose them and or think about them.

We are not going away, there is no logical justification for this rape of the people and it must end!

We won't stop, you've been arresting us for almost eighty years and we don't stop, we have a compelling interest in winning.
Many of those against us, however, are dying, or losing interest- and once they lose interest-
you will be smelling smoke and seeing us smile.

May the best person win.

Much luck to you.

Kelly.

kizzman

Schizophrenia.com - Marijuana Cannabis and Schizophrenia
Schizophrenia Daily News Blog: Marijuana and Psychosis Link
Self reported cannabis use as a risk factor for sc...[BMJ. 2002] - PubMed Result
Above are several notations of studies that do link marijuana use to increased risk for psychosis; you will notice there is a vast number of them from a range of research groups.
The source you post is misleading. It says "the researchers couldn’t prove that marijuana use itself increases the risk of psychosis.” Yes, but a reader does not get the full context. The full statement, as derived from Marijuana may increase psychosis risk, analysis says - CNN.com:
'The researchers said they couldn't prove that marijuana use itself increases the risk of psychosis, a category of several disorders with schizophrenia being the most commonly known.
There could be something else about marijuana users, "like their tendency to use other drugs or certain personality traits, that could be causing the psychoses," Zammit said.'

And, I must point out that you list an endeavor by a single group of researchers, yet the studies that associate marijuana with increased risk for psychosis, directly or not, still stand large in number.


Oh, and I almost forgot to respond to this part of your post:
Even if these situations do not harm people other than yourself, you cannot trust that the drug use will remain so isolated. See the broad range of situations that could fall under the description I posted - the spread of use due to pressure. Also, the availability of marijuana with its legality will inevitably spread usage rates and numbers, and thus dependency and other damages will increase.

kizzman

Most prohibitions have been poorly conducted. Psychology is a new and rising
field of study that is more likely to fuel successful preventative efforts today than it was decades ago.
I'm only offering an analogy. As I've noted before, using studies acknowledged by NORML itself (They do accept the notion that the influence of marijuana increases accident risk - see the Kaiser studies I posted very recently), marijuana influence can result in the loss of human life due to accidents.

Still, even if you don't want me to compare the two, I wasn't using the analogy as a rationale, only an example. Simply because something good is difficult does not mean pursuit of it should be abandoned.