Game over, drug warriors

[douglas]

I agree, you can drink yourself to death and it does cause organ failure but to say pot don't cause deaths is not really true. How many accidents have been caused because the driver was high, didn't see the red light or stop sign. Maybe they thought they could beat the train to the crossing or didn't see the curve and drove off the cliff.

Although this is true of Marijuana, it's also true of pure air. A car is a deadly weapon; you can kill or be killed while behind the wheel, despite any drug use.

Marijuana users twice as likely to cause accident
Smoking Marijuana Doubles Risk of Fatal Accidents
Marijuana a major cause of accidents? What study says - HealthPop - CBS News
And several more. traffic accidents caused by marijuana - Yahoo! Search Results

First, none of those studies were conclusive. An excerpt from the cbs link;

"We can't really say yet that marijuana increases the risk by two or three times,"

But, even if that was true, it only means something when put into context with other rates.

Marijuana = 2x (if true)
Alcohol = 20x
Cell phone = 30x

We don't make Alcohol or Cell phones illegal, even though they cause significantly more traffic deaths. It's ridiculous to arrest a person for drinking and not driving, but you're supporting the exact same thing for Marijuana.

I know Medical pot helps some people with pain going thru cancer treatment, but isn't that in pill form? Never heard of it killing cancer. Where did you hear that?
What makes you think that smoking pot make you smarter? please explain.
Thanks

It's not just for anti-nausea during chemotherapy, Marijuana kills the cancer itself:

Collective-Evolution
Curing Cancer with Cannabis | Veterans Today
Marijuana And Cancer: Scientists Find Cannabis Compound Stops Metastasis In Aggressive Cancers
HOW and WHY Cannabis Cures Cancer - Scientific Explanation - GreenMedTV (With around a hundred other diseases it cures)
There Is No Mistaking The Evidence, Cannabis Cures Cancer | True Activist

The US government has known since 1972 that Marijuana is completely harmless and non-toxic; in 1972, Nixon commissioned a report on Marijuana. The report, colloquially called the 1972 Shafer Commission, detailed Marijuana's non-toxicity, it's non-addictive nature, and officially denounced the Gateway-drug theory. It also noted that users were of above average intelligence;

Based on IQ testing, they were superior intellectually.

A copy of the Shafer Commission, Marihuana Use and Its Effects

Now, there have been many reports that show a Lowering of IQ, but these typically misrepresent Socio-Economic effects as Marijuana Effects; Essentially, they test their non-drug using population from a rich part of town (who normally have better schools, nutrition, and nurturing) and read a high IQ, then test poor people as their drug using population and get a low IQ. When studies are done on just poor vs rich IQ, they find the exact same difference, despite any Marijuana use.

One of the more famous ones that led to the idea that "it kills brain cells", was recently denounced as a fraud. The "scientists" had strapped a gas mask to a monkey, pumped a year's worth of Marijuana smoke into the monkey's lungs for 20 minutes or so, until it had died due to asphyxiation. They autopsied the brain, said, "Oh look, dead brain cells." and then concluded that Marijuana kills brain cells. It was contrived and designed to deceive people.

All recent studies have shown the exact opposite effect, that Marijuana protects Neurons, potentially treating dozens of mental illnesses:
Researchers study neuroprotective properties in cannabis | Fox News
New Study Finds Cannabis May Have Neuroprotective Effects | The Weed Blog
THC and cannabidiol aka POT are neuroprotective antioxidants! (pain, smoking, cancer) - Doctors, illness, diseases, nutrition, sleep, stress, diet, hospitals, medicine, cancer, heart disease - City-Data Forum
Specifically notes Marijuana as a treatment to Alzheimers' disease:
https://ivn.us/2013/07/24/marijuana-may-be-legitimate-treatment-for-alzheimers-disease-report-says/
How Cannabinoids May Slow Brain Aging | TIME.com
Marijuana May Slow Alzheimer's

For a big discussion of medical marijuana, check out procon's debate on the topic; 105 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Marijuana - Medical Marijuana - ProCon.org

When it comes to the whole pill vs. marijuana issue, you understand how ridiculous it is, right? If I buy a drug that's FDA approved, but is more addictive, more toxic, and objectively more harmful in every way, it's legal; if I buy a non-toxic, non-addictive, non-harmful plant, I'll see prison time. ProCon has a chart of Marijuana vs. the top 17 FDA approved drugs it replaces; Deaths from Marijuana v. 17 FDA-Approved Drugs - Medical Marijuana - ProCon.org ; and shows that Marijuana kills 1 person for every 42 that die from the relevant FDA approved drugs. Which one should a doctor prescribe? (Do no harm, anyone?) Just because it's a pill, doesn't make it better.

But, I'm not even for it for medical benefits; if recreational use was regulated, medical use would be inherently legal as well, and would probably be cheaper and more accessible. The law isn't there to protect people from themselves, it's there to protect people from the actions of others. All actions are possibly harmful, but we should only go after those that are inherently reckless. We should go after stoned drivers, just as we go after drunk drivers; just as we don't go after Alcohol users for no reason, we shouldn't do the same for Marijuana. That Marijuana is potentially a wonder medicine, is just the cherry on top of how ridiculous the War on Drugs is.

 

[sbrettt]

Although this is true of Marijuana, it's also true of pure air. A car is a deadly weapon; you can kill or be killed while behind the wheel, despite any drug use.

First, none of those studies were conclusive. An excerpt from the cbs link;

But, even if that was true, it only means something when put into context with other rates.

Marijuana = 2x (if true)
Alcohol = 20x
Cell phone = 30x

We don't make Alcohol or Cell phones illegal, even though they cause significantly more traffic deaths. It's ridiculous to arrest a person for drinking and not driving, but you're supporting the exact same thing for Marijuana.


It's not just for anti-nausea during chemotherapy, Marijuana kills the cancer itself:

Collective-Evolution
Curing Cancer with Cannabis | Veterans Today
Marijuana And Cancer: Scientists Find Cannabis Compound Stops Metastasis In Aggressive Cancers
HOW and WHY Cannabis Cures Cancer - Scientific Explanation - GreenMedTV (With around a hundred other diseases it cures)
There Is No Mistaking The Evidence, Cannabis Cures Cancer | True Activist

The US government has known since 1972 that Marijuana is completely harmless and non-toxic; in 1972, Nixon commissioned a report on Marijuana. The report, colloquially called the 1972 Shafer Commission, detailed Marijuana's non-toxicity, it's non-addictive nature, and officially denounced the Gateway-drug theory. It also noted that users were of above average intelligence;


A copy of the Shafer Commission, Marihuana Use and Its Effects

Now, there have been many reports that show a Lowering of IQ, but these typically misrepresent Socio-Economic effects as Marijuana Effects; Essentially, they test their non-drug using population from a rich part of town (who normally have better schools, nutrition, and nurturing) and read a high IQ, then test poor people as their drug using population and get a low IQ. When studies are done on just poor vs rich IQ, they find the exact same difference, despite any Marijuana use.

One of the more famous ones that led to the idea that "it kills brain cells", was recently denounced as a fraud. The "scientists" had strapped a gas mask to a monkey, pumped a year's worth of Marijuana smoke into the monkey's lungs for 20 minutes or so, until it had died due to asphyxiation. They autopsied the brain, said, "Oh look, dead brain cells." and then concluded that Marijuana kills brain cells. It was contrived and designed to deceive people.

All recent studies have shown the exact opposite effect, that Marijuana protects Neurons, potentially treating dozens of mental illnesses:
Researchers study neuroprotective properties in cannabis | Fox News
New Study Finds Cannabis May Have Neuroprotective Effects | The Weed Blog
THC and cannabidiol aka POT are neuroprotective antioxidants! (pain, smoking, cancer) - Doctors, illness, diseases, nutrition, sleep, stress, diet, hospitals, medicine, cancer, heart disease - City-Data Forum
Specifically notes Marijuana as a treatment to Alzheimers' disease:
https://ivn.us/2013/07/24/marijuana-may-be-legitimate-treatment-for-alzheimers-disease-report-says/
How Cannabinoids May Slow Brain Aging | TIME.com
Marijuana May Slow Alzheimer's

For a big discussion of medical marijuana, check out procon's debate on the topic; 105 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Marijuana - Medical Marijuana - ProCon.org

When it comes to the whole pill vs. marijuana issue, you understand how ridiculous it is, right? If I buy a drug that's FDA approved, but is more addictive, more toxic, and objectively more harmful in every way, it's legal; if I buy a non-toxic, non-addictive, non-harmful plant, I'll see prison time. ProCon has a chart of Marijuana vs. the top 17 FDA approved drugs it replaces; Deaths from Marijuana v. 17 FDA-Approved Drugs - Medical Marijuana - ProCon.org ; and shows that Marijuana kills 1 person for every 42 that die from the relevant FDA approved drugs. Which one should a doctor prescribe? (Do no harm, anyone?) Just because it's a pill, doesn't make it better.

But, I'm not even for it for medical benefits; if recreational use was regulated, medical use would be inherently legal as well, and would probably be cheaper and more accessible. The law isn't there to protect people from themselves, it's there to protect people from the actions of others. All actions are possibly harmful, but we should only go after those that are inherently reckless. We should go after stoned drivers, just as we go after drunk drivers; just as we don't go after Alcohol users for no reason, we shouldn't do the same for Marijuana. That Marijuana is potentially a wonder medicine, is just the cherry on top of how ridiculous the War on Drugs is.

Chill out. You're going to scare off the drug warriors.

 

[blackjack50]

Can't wait to see the long term side effects. Also I wonder what the age limit will be. We certainly can't control alcohol...

 

[sbrettt]

Can't wait to see the long term side effects. Also I wonder what the age limit will be. We certainly can't control alcohol...

No one in their right mind should expect the government to be able to completely control drugs. Although, we can come closer with legality and regulation. I'm sure there's some exceptions, but I've found it's a lot easier to get weed than it is to get alcohol. Age limit should be 21. Not sure what you mean about long term side effects? Pot has been around for quite a while.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

Although I'm not a proponent of filling up my lungs with any kind of smoke, I think if pot was legalized it could put a huge dent in illegal drug trafficking. I also think it would generate enough tax revenues that could help the economy reduce the national debt. The only reason I don't think it will help the economy is because politicians would just piss away the additional tax revenues like they do with many other tax payer contributions.

 

[douglas]

Chill out. You're going to scare off the drug warriors.

I might have to start throwing in a couple lies every few paragraphs; the truth is just too scary for them.

 

[Surtr]

I disagree. Once almost 60% of people support it candidates will likely start running on it. I think whether you have a dog in this or not, no one who isn't a shill, will honestly agree that Cannabis fits as a schedule 1 narcotic.

Whether or not people believe it or not, the fed is the slowest moving machine when it comes to changing its own laws. Just look how long it took for the civil rights movement to bear fruit.

 

[blackjack50]

No one in their right mind should expect the government to be able to completely control drugs. Although, we can come closer with legality and regulation. I'm sure there's some exceptions, but I've found it's a lot easier to get weed than it is to get alcohol. Age limit should be 21. Not sure what you mean about long term side effects? Pot has been around for quite a while.

How many studies on long term effects can you read right now? I know it is hard to find one that is credible and not dripping with bias. Hell there hasn't been a true study to the level one would find on other medical drugs.

It isn't about the length of time a drug has been around. It is about the reasons to commit to study. I mean how long was tobacco around? How long did it take for people to pick up ok that whole cancer thing?

 

[sbrettt]

Whether or not people believe it or not, the fed is the slowest moving machine when it comes to changing its own laws. Just look how long it took for the civil rights movement to bear fruit.

A good point, but look at how quickly same sex marriage is being recognized. We got two states right off the bat. It's looking pretty good to me. :mrgreen:

 

[sbrettt]

How many studies on long term effects can you read right now? I know it is hard to find one that is credible and not dripping with bias. Hell there hasn't been a true study to the level one would find on other medical drugs.

It isn't about the length of time a drug has been around. It is about the reasons to commit to study. I mean how long was tobacco around? How long did it take for people to pick up ok that whole cancer thing?

You have a point. The majority of studies out there have an obvious drug warrior bias, but even those show marijuana isn't any more dangerous than alcohol in the long run. So this is also not a valid reason to continue with illegality. Not sure where you stand on legality though.

 

[Surtr]

A good point, but look at how quickly same sex marriage is being recognized. We got two states right off the bat. It's looking pretty good to me. :mrgreen:

There's still a long way to go for SSM. California tried to legalize marijuana for medical use only, and the DEA swooped in to kick that in the ass. They did the same thing to Seattle, demanding that all dispensaries of medical marijuana be shut down. While Holder has stated that they're going to ignore state legalization at this time, the fact that it's still a Schedule 1 drug means they'll be back. Congress has to write the bill, a majority has to vote in favor of it, and the DEA needs to calm their tits. I just don't see that happening any time soon.

 

[sbrettt]

There's still a long way to go for SSM. California tried to legalize marijuana for medical use only, and the DEA swooped in to kick that in the ass. They did the same thing to Seattle, demanding that all dispensaries of medical marijuana be shut down. While Holder has stated that they're going to ignore state legalization at this time, the fact that it's still a Schedule 1 drug means they'll be back. Congress has to write the bill, a majority has to vote in favor of it, and the DEA needs to calm their tits. I just don't see that happening any time soon.

Then the DEA calmed down because medical mary jane is alive and well in Cali. Holder recently asked for relaxed sentencing on possession charges. It's happening, and it's only a question of when and how. I say 15 years maximum, but I admit I can be on the irrationally optimistic side. eace

 

[Surtr]

Then the DEA calmed down because medical mary jane is alive and well in Cali. Holder recently asked for relaxed sentencing on possession charges. It's happening, and it's only a question of when and how. I say 15 years maximum, but I admit I can be on the irrationally optimistic side. eace

It's not irrational. All signs point towards legalization, but the fed has a long history of pulling some bull****.

 

[sbrettt]

It's not irrational. All signs point towards legalization, but the fed has a long history of pulling some bull****.

Very true. :lol: I meant irrational in reference to my time line. It could possibly be longer than 15 years, but I really doubt it.

 

[Surtr]

Very true. :lol: I meant irrational in reference to my time line. It could possibly be longer than 15 years, but I really doubt it.

It could very likely be within the next 15 years. I don't think that's too far fetched.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Legalization of Cannabis is a certainty in my opinion. It's just a question of when, and how.
Record-High 50% of Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana Use

This is an invite for drug warriors to argue it isn't a certainty.

is that a measure of likely voters? because if you don't vote you don't matter

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I disagree. Once almost 60% of people support it candidates will likely start running on it. I think whether you have a dog in this or not, no one who isn't a shill, will honestly agree that Cannabis fits as a schedule 1 narcotic.

not if a large percentage of that group doesn't vote

<<<Youth voter turnout rates also declined from 2008 to 2012, contrary to initial reports based on the national Election Day exit polls, which had shown the youth voter turnout rate holding steady. According to the Census Bureau report, the turnout rate among 18-to 24-year olds fell to 41.2% in 2012 from 48.5% in 2008. (Most of the post-election analysis of the youth vote focused on 18- to 29-year-olds and showed no change in voter turnout rates between 2008 and 2012; the Census Bureau report only provides an analysis for those ages 18 to 24 years.) The turnout rates of adults ages 65 and older rose—to 71.9% in 2012 from 70.3% in 2008, according to the Census Bureau report.>>>

Six take-aways from the Census Bureau

 

[blackjack50]

You have a point. The majority of studies out there have an obvious drug warrior bias, but even those show marijuana isn't any more dangerous than alcohol in the long run. So this is also not a valid reason to continue with illegality. Not sure where you stand on legality though.

Well I have more than a few reasons to be against recreational marijuana. They are personal reasons I don't want to discuss. I am sort of ok with the medicinal use though.

But the substance should be subjected to numerous long term studies. There are side effects that we do know about (paranoia and psychosis for those who start early). The question is what are the odds? Significance? Smoking pot specifically is something I am curious about in terms of second hand effects (particularly on children). There really are a lot of studies I just haven't seen yet.

As far as I am concerned anything that alters your state of mind is likely to cause some kind of side effect. That includes alcohol and caffeine, not just THC.

 

[blackjack50]

A few other points i am curious about. What becomes of the criminal enterprise who grows and sells grass? I certainly cannot be the only one who sees them trying to either turn legitimate or turn to other drugs? I certainly don't want Mexican drug cartels rolling in legal money. Something tells me pot will be far more difficult to tax than alcohol.

 

[sbrettt]

Well I have more than a few reasons to be against recreational marijuana. They are personal reasons I don't want to discuss. I am sort of ok with the medicinal use though.

But the substance should be subjected to numerous long term studies. There are side effects that we do know about (paranoia and psychosis for those who start early). The question is what are the odds? Significance? Smoking pot specifically is something I am curious about in terms of second hand effects (particularly on children). There really are a lot of studies I just haven't seen yet.

As far as I am concerned anything that alters your state of mind is likely to cause some kind of side effect. That includes alcohol and caffeine, not just THC.

Fair enough, and personal reasons also have no validity in the debate over legalization so it's good you chose not to bring them up. Every study I've heard of has shown little to zero long term side effects. Paranoia is a potential side effect from the high, not a lasting one like some drug warrior sites with claim. I agree that psychoactive substances have side effects. Also not a good reason to keep them illegal when the side effects are mild.

 

[sbrettt]

not if a large percentage of that group doesn't vote

<<<Youth voter turnout rates also declined from 2008 to 2012, contrary to initial reports based on the national Election Day exit polls, which had shown the youth voter turnout rate holding steady. According to the Census Bureau report, the turnout rate among 18-to 24-year olds fell to 41.2% in 2012 from 48.5% in 2008. (Most of the post-election analysis of the youth vote focused on 18- to 29-year-olds and showed no change in voter turnout rates between 2008 and 2012; the Census Bureau report only provides an analysis for those ages 18 to 24 years.) The turnout rates of adults ages 65 and older rose—to 71.9% in 2012 from 70.3% in 2008, according to the Census Bureau report.>>>

Six take-aways from the Census Bureau

A valid point, but thing is youth turnout would likely increase if someone ran on legalization.

 

[blackjack50]

Fair enough, and personal reasons also have no validity in the debate over legalization so it's good you chose not to bring them up.

Well I have been a witness to side effects of the drug on those who start early. I watched a friend turn into a psychopath. He started smoking around 13. But my community is also at testament to what happens to people who get wrapped up in a vice (gambling, alcohol, pot, crack, and meth). Hence my objection to pot on a personal level.

Every study I've heard of has shown little to zero long term side effects. Paranoia is a potential side effect from the high, not a lasting one like some drug warrior sites with claim. I agree that psychoactive substances have side effects. Also not a good reason to keep them illegal when the side effects are mild.

See I have seen inconclusive results. But the potential side effects are a good reason to keep them illegal. Keep in mind that "mild" is a subjective term. Concrete terms need to be established. If there aren't, one could make the case that another drug should be legalized because side effects are similar to pot (I'm not up on the side effects or terminology of pot...but I think I explained well enough).

 

[sbrettt]

Well I have been a witness to side effects of the drug on those who start early. I watched a friend turn into a psychopath. He started smoking around 13. But my community is also at testament to what happens to people who get wrapped up in a vice (gambling, alcohol, pot, crack, and meth). Hence my objection to pot on a personal level.

Do you have any evidence that it was the pot doing that, and he didn't just have issues to begin with? Also, do you know if he used any other drugs? All the studies I've seen supporting your view have been discredited. Many studies that contradict this have not.
Study: Marijuana Not Linked With Long Term Cognitive Impairment | TIME.com

See I have seen inconclusive results. But the potential side effects are a good reason to keep them illegal. Keep in mind that "mild" is a subjective term. Concrete terms need to be established. If there aren't, one could make the case that another drug should be legalized because side effects are similar to pot (I'm not up on the side effects or terminology of pot...but I think I explained well enough).

The idea that pot causes long term mental health issues has been debunked. I concede that it may cause adolescents some problems because anything that's psychoactive is bad for a developing brain. Thing is, because pot isn't regulated it's typically very easy for minors to acquire. The sensible thing to do is to regulate it.

 

[blackjack50]

Do you have any evidence that it was the pot doing that, and he didn't just have issues to begin with? Also, do you know if he used any other drugs? All the studies I've seen supporting your view have been discredited. Many studies that contradict this have not.
Study: Marijuana Not Linked With Long Term Cognitive Impairment | TIME.com

Occum's razor. No history of mental illness. He wasn't one for anything other than pot. And he smoked a significant amount of it. And keep in mind he started at 13 and I lost touch with him at 21 because of his habit (he was absolutely addicted to getting high in terms of mentality).

The idea that pot causes long term mental health issues has been debunked. I concede that it may cause adolescents some problems because anything that's psychoactive is bad for a developing brain. Thing is, because pot isn't regulated it's typically very easy for minors to acquire. The sensible thing to do is to regulate it.

I have seen MANY studies that agree with the idea or adolescents needing to avoid pot because of brain development. Hence my absolute objection for anyone under 21. But in terms of long term addiction? Like I have stated before...there is no conclusive study. I'm sure if there was the drug warriors or stoners would have made it the first google entry with all their citation.

In terms of "regulation" that is pretty much a joke. Consider alcohol an tobacco. Not that hard for minors to get either. I mean I can't think of an after party that kids didn't get wasted when I was in school.

 

[sbrettt]

Occum's razor. No history of mental illness. He wasn't one for anything other than pot. And he smoked a significant amount of it. And keep in mind he started at 13 and I lost touch with him at 21 because of his habit (he was absolutely addicted to getting high in terms of mentality).



I have seen MANY studies that agree with the idea or adolescents needing to avoid pot because of brain development. Hence my absolute objection for anyone under 21. But in terms of long term addiction? Like I have stated before...there is no conclusive study. I'm sure if there was the drug warriors or stoners would have made it the first google entry with all their citation.

In terms of "regulation" that is pretty much a joke. Consider alcohol an tobacco. Not that hard for minors to get either. I mean I can't think of an after party that kids didn't get wasted when I was in school.

Eh, I think he had his own problems to begin with, and pot can exasperate existing mental health issues. Absolutely, I think the age limit should be 21 so we agree there. I've seen studies indicating pot is equally or slightly more physically addictive than caffeine. You should check the chart I posted earlier. You're somewhat right about regulation, but foolish to think because regulation isn't 100% effective, illegality is the answer when that fails even more miserably.