Pot Kills! [W:498]

[4Horsemen]

Prison guard unions and the pharmaveutical i dustry are two of the stro gest lobbies against legalization.

Law enforcement less every year.

But you keep on shoveling stale bs.

Because it would cut into their profits as the Biggest drug dealers

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I smoked pot before I smoked cigarettes.

Exceptions occur.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Can't anxiety and depression themselves be manifested by physical reactions such as increased heart rate, nausea/vomiting/digestive problems, sweating, sleep disturbance?

Sometimes. This is why certain scales are used to determine the status of one's mood. In some studies, these mood assessment tools are given throughout the withdrawal to tease out psychological vs. physical causes. It's not an exact science, of course.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

"Physical withdrawl", as defined by mental health, means any observable symptom, but it does not mean that the symptom is the result of physical dependence.

No, as I said, there is a difference between physical withdrawal and psychological withdrawal. And physical dependence can result from both.

Using "physical withdrawl symptom" to prove physical dependence does not work. The mental health and physiological terminology is being garbled.

No, physical withdrawal is part of physical dependence.

All of those are listed as "physical withdrawl symptoms" in your lists and articles.

I just relooked at the first four. NONE of them did. ALL of them used the blanket term "withdrawal", not making a distinction.

 

[ecofarm]

No, as I said, there is a difference between physical withdrawal and psychological withdrawal. And physical dependence can result from both.

That sentence doesn't make sense.

No, physical withdrawal is part of physical dependence.

It depends on how one is using the terminology. Mental health considers many psychologically induced symptoms to be "physical" because they are observable and measurable.

I just relooked at the first four. NONE of them did. ALL of them used the blanket term "withdrawal", not making a distinction.

And why do you think that is? I'll give you a hint: "physical withdrawl symptoms", in a mental health context, means observable and measurable. It does not mean "resulting from physical dependence".

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

For those unfamilar with the term "Reefer Madness" ..

Here's the Wiki presentation on the film: Reefer Madness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The film was made in 1936 by a church to truthfully present the dangers of pot-abuse known even back then.

It was then purchased by an exploitation film producer.

The film did not gain an audience until pro-pot-abuse legalization advocates discovered the film in the 1970s.

Pro-pot-abuse legalization advocates found that the apparent over-dramatic ham-acting in the film, that was typical of the movie-style in the 1930s, could be twisted sarcastically in marketing the film in pot-abuse-leaglization favor, to spin the film's message from one of accurately presenting the damage deadly pot-abuse does to the irrational, laughable premise-conclusion that "the acting is exaggerated, therefore the claims of the damage pot does is also exaggerated". :lol:

As irrational and erroneous as that spin was, such didn't matter to pot-abusers and legalization apologists, who don't really seem to get how foolish they look at times.

So NORML and other pro-pot-abuse groups now push their "preaching-to-the-choir" irrational erroneous spin of "Reefer Madness" as one of their maifestations of denial of how damaging and deadly pot truly is.

If you're going to use Reefer Madness to try to bolster your argument, your argument is going to go right to the toilet. Reefer Madness IS an exploitation film that has no basis in reality. Anyone with a basic understanding of how marijuana affects the brain and behavior understands this. It has been thoroughly discredited as having any validity

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Like many things in your position you are also wrong about this. It is primarily psychedelic.

Actually, it's both. At one time is was classified as a depressant, but that has changed and is now classified more as a hallucinogen, though it has properties of both.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

That sentence doesn't make sense.

In reference to my other post, it does.

It depends on how one is using the terminology. Mental health considers many psychologically induced symptoms to be "physical" because they are observable and measurable.

No, there is still a distinction between the two.

And why do you think that is? I'll give you a hint: "physical withdrawl symptoms", in a mental health context, means observable and measurable. It does not mean "resulting from physical dependence".

No, as I said there are two types of withdrawal. The studies blanket them all into "withdrawal".

 

[Thorgasm]

Sometimes. This is why certain scales are used to determine the status of one's mood. In some studies, these mood assessment tools are given throughout the withdrawal to tease out psychological vs. physical causes. It's not an exact science, of course.

It's subjective. Either there is empirical data to support it or there isn't.

 

[ecofarm]

No, there is still a distinction between the two.

Apparently not:

No, as I said there are two types of withdrawal. The studies blanket them all into "withdrawal".

 

[ecofarm]

Actually, it's both. At one time is was classified as a depressant, but that has changed and is now classified more as a hallucinogen, though it has properties of both.

Are we talking about pot? It's a non-hallucinogenic euphoric.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

It's subjective. Either there is empirical data to support it or there isn't.

What's subjective?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Apparently not:

Both of those sentences are consistent with each other.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Are we talking about pot? It's a non-hallucinogenic euphoric.

No. Psychoactive substances are placed in one of three categories: stimulant, depressant, hallucinogen. Marijuana has qualities of all three and, depending on the user, the state of the user, and the strength of the drug, it can cause any of those responses.

 

[ecofarm]

No. Psychoactive substances are placed in one of three categories: stimulant, depressant, hallucinogen. Marijuana has qualities of all three and, depending on the user, the state of the user, and the strength of the drug, it can cause any of those responses.

The odds of actually seeing a unicorn are better than seeing one because of pot.

 

[Ontologuy]

Actually,

No, not Actually -- indeed, far from it.

Ontologuy's position on this is just as damaging as those who claim that there are no negative effects to marijuana.

Now that doesn't make any sense, obviously.

If people heed the OP position, if people take the advice of the qualified professionals in the matter, the healthcare, medical, psychological authorities, their presentation I've included in the OP, that pot is damaging and deadly, and people stop abusing pot, the result is healthier people who don't die prematurely from drug abuse or kill others in the process.

But, if they take the advice of thsoe saying there are no negative effects to pot, and they abuse pot on the advice that "naw, all that stuff about pot being damaging and deadly is just 'reefer madness'", then what happens? That's right, people get damaged and die and kill others from driving while stoned.

Now obviously, the latter position is far more damaging than the former, I mean, it's pretty much a no-brainer.

So, considering how obvious it truly is, I can't help but wonder what would motivate you to say otherwise.

And two thoughts come to mind.

First, you might think you can make more headway in helping people recover from pot-abuse if you stake out some kind of middle-ground, project an appearance of "reasonableness", try to gain the "trust" of those addicts you want to help get off of drugs. Thus you need to create that middle-ground by "defining" two extremes on each side of you, each of the "just as dangerous" positions you mention here. That way you can criticize one of your created extremes (the OP valid authorities I support) to gain support of the other created extreme (those who are addicts you wish to help).

And second, since you have already made your mind up that legalization is a "good thing", it would make sense in support of your legalization position to be critical of the OP, it's presentation, authorities, and valid conclusions that clearly support all the really valid arguments for keeping pot illegal.

Regardless, none of that in any way negates the truth presented in the OP which I support.

You may wish to castigate telling the truth about the damaging deadly nature of pot for whatever your purposes are, but that doesn't make your castigations valid.

And, I would argue against any such codependent coddling of drug abusers. From what I've read here of the responses to the valid points you've made about addiction, not only will it not make any difference, they'll simply use it against you in the typical manipulative manner.

Not everyone who uses marijuana is an abuser

Aside from true medical marijuana, used to treat a true medical condition, prescribed by a real doctor, prescribed specifically, judiciously and in accordance with authorized medical guidelines, used in true complicance with the prescribed dosage, etc. ..

.. No, your statement is simply false.

Pot use is abuse, obviously.

There is no fantasized middle-ground here in reality,

and not every "toke" is dangerous...

Even with true medical marijuana, there are still damaging side-effects to pot.

For those who simply "use" "recreationally" and whatever other euphemisms-for-abuse denial you want to placate with, the reality remains that every toke is indeed damaging.

Every toke inflicts damage on brain cells, the nervous system, cardio vascular system, respiratory system, you name it -- every single toke.

And every toke kills brain cells.

So that as tokes mount up, the body cannot recover.

Sometimes one-sitting of pot can kill, as the OP link to the coroners' report accurately presented.

Often, over time of pot abuse, degenerative disease occurs, and the pot abuser develops symptoms listed by the valid authority experts I presented in the OP.

... or at least no more dangerous than a "hit" off a cigarette or a glass of alcohol.

And there it is -- the ubiquitous hedge when realization sets in that the previous statement was simply wrong. :roll:

Still, a great argument for taking a second look at tobacco's legality and really cracking down with jail terms on parents whose kids get into the alcohol cupboard.

But the topic is pot and its intrinsic damaging and deadly nature.

And comparisons to other badness only reaffirms the bad nature of pot, not to mention the purpose-defeating mistakes pot-legalization advocates make by laughably comparing pot abuse to drinking 20 gallaons of water all at once. :lol:

This kind of misinformation

It's not "misinformation", it's accurate information, truth-based fact.

Sadly, many people have been under the NORML, LEAP, oppositional defiance counter-culture, etc. desensitization mythology spell for so long they're now of the mindset that pot isn't damaging and deadly at all.

So, yes, to hear or read the actual facts of the damaging and deadly nature of pot, as the OP accuately presents, yes, that's gonna come as a "shock" to some, which, I suppose, they'll think is "misinformation" .. though they'd be, reality considered, wrong.

does nothing to further the debate.

A debate is furthered, not by trying to manipulate it too, but by each person holding each position presenting that position, in all its aspects, without censure of perspective or information, and letting the debate flow naturally, as all aspects are then brought to the forefront, where there is then the greatest chance that the true benefits of debate will emerge.

 

[Ontologuy]

You have yet to present a reliable source showing how deadly marijuana is.

Obviously and laughably false.

You keep repeating this false statement, that flies in the face of the multiple valid healthcare, medical, psychological, law-enforcement reliable authority links and quotes found in the OP, as if you are expecting different results ..

.. And you know what they say that's a symptom of ...

So, since there isn't much evidence showing that marijuana is especially deadly, why outlaw it?

Because your premise is false, obviously, your conclusion does not logically follow.

The OP post, along with the second post in this thread, combine to create the unmistakable valid conclusion that pot must remain illegal.

The public wants it

No, your blanket statement is false.

Only some of the public wants to abuse pot, and, according to statistics, that's a very tiny percentage of the public.

The vast majority of the rest of the public wants it to remain rightly illegal.

and it's not that harmful,

:lol:

you see, CC, this is what comes from a codepenent coddle approach as opposed to simply telling the straight truth: those so codependently coddled think they have the counselor/therapist perspective on their side.

so let em' have it. Why waste millions and millions of dollars and lives on keeping something that is not that dangerous, illegal?

Yep, it's ludicrous presentations like this that cause one to realize this site suffers from the lack of a good facepalm smilie.

Again, if you can present a reliable sources showing how deadly marijuana is, I'll listen.

No you won't, obviously, because I presented many presentations from different sources in the OP all from reliable valid authorities in the matter, and you simply don't listen.

But, posting something from About.com doesn't qualify as reliable.

Why? Because you say it isn't? Because it presents the fact-based truth coming from the valid healthcare, medical, psychological, law-enforcement valid authorities in the matter that flies in the face of what you say?

:lol:

Your complaint is truly lame.

But it does show what extreme extents pro-pot-abuse/legalization people will go to, even if it's so obviously erroneous, irrelevant, and just plain silly.

And for your criticism of comparing marijuana to alcohol and tobacco, I don't see how that isn't a valid comparison.

Yeah, I know you don't .. but I can only lead a horse to water, I can't make him drink 20 gallons of it in one sitting.

Tobacco and alcohol are most definitely more dangerous than marijuana, and have taken the lives of many. So, shouldn't you first be saying that tobacco and alcohol should be outlawed before saying that marijuana should remain outlawed? It's really hard to favor the legalization of alcohol and tobacco but favor making marijuana illegal.

:roll:

 

[cAPSLOCK]

Yep, it's ludicrous presentations like this that cause one to realize this site suffers from the lack of a good facepalm smilie.

I found one.

 

[Thorgasm]

What's subjective?

Gauging moods.

 

[beerftw]

When I was a minor, it was way easier to get pot than to get alcohol.

If you wanted alcohol, you had to know someone significantly older who was willing to buy it for you on short notice, or really stupid parents who won't notice there's suddenly a couple bottles missing. It's not easy.

But pot? The dealer doesn't care how old you are. They don't check ID's at the street corner. It's easy to get pot no matter how old you are, and it doesn't cost much more than alcohol. In a few places it costs less.

amateur,everyone should know how to make apple moonshine by the time their 12!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!if your getting people to buy it,you failed chemistry and biology classes.

 

[Ontologuy]

Yeah .. but those you need to convince to get pot legalized -- the vast majority of parents and grandparents who already know that: 1) pot is deadly, and 2) it has no redeeming social value as it is abused -- they're just not hearing the message you want them to hear, and understandably so.

They're too busy being concerned about the wellbeing of their children, pre-teens and teens, heck, even their young-adult grown kids.

And you just associated pot in your presentation with "meth", "heroin", and "crack". :shock:

Not good Madison Ave. strategy if you wish to plant the message in the minds of those that works for you.

And here's another thing -- the fact that 1) the drug war so many of you loathe has failed to stop kids from getting pot and damaging themseles with pot abuse, coupled with the fact that 2) many more kids are killed/severely damaged due to alcohol -- that's legal -- than pot, .. well, just what message do you think that plants in the minds of the already concerned great majority in the matter?

That's right: "if pot becomes legal it will be a whole lot easier for our kids to get pot, like it is with alcohol! We may not be stopping all the pot from getting to our kids by keeping pot ilegal, but we're certainly stopping most of it, that's for darn sure!"

Bad Madison Ave. strategy again.

Oh yeah, not unlke your Madison Avenue strategy that "Pot Kills, news at eleven". And then there is "but the children.....!!!".

On the contrary, the fact-based truth of the OP appeals to the vast majority of people: parents and grandparents who vote.

Now tell me appealing to that demographic isn't good marketing strategy .. go on, tell me ...

Come on man. Look at the pot calling the kettle black.

Nope, that's not the case, obviously.

You're appealing to a tiny minority and in a way that irritates the vast majority, so when it comes to bad Madison Ave. strategy, it's pretty obvious ..

.. That between the two of us, you're the only charred food-cooker.

What you control the market for you can have some control over who gets to have it.

Pardon me, Mr. Berra, but I'm going to need a yogi to divine what you meant here.

It will make it easier for kids to get it in some respects and harder in other respects.

Your contrived dichotomy here is simply false.

All accurate reasoning, validated by every study, reveals that, just as when alcohol was made legal after prohibition abuse among kids sky-rocketed, so, obviously would pot abuse sky-rocket among kids were it foolishly made legal.

That's life in a free country.

No, that would be life in a decadent and dying country.

Fortunately we're not only supposed to be a free country but a secure country as well.

Freedom and security, like the liberty and justice they base respectively, must exist in dynamic balance for either one to be of value.

The great compromise to the right to life and security of person that would occur from pot legalization in the name of the right of freedom of action would be devastating to our country and its principles, all its principles.

And, of course, the vast majority of parents and grandparents, who raise/have raised kids and have thereby learned first hand how foundationally imperative balancing freedom and security is to the wellbeing and growth of their kids, they know that what I'm saying is true here .. and, they vote.

I think we can deal with it maturely and responsibly.

That's right -- by keeping pot illegal, obviously.

Those that do not shouldn't have control over my freedom and choices.

But if your choices pose a real and present danger to those they love -- a real and present danger that pot-abuse does to everyone in all its aspects and that legalization condones and sanctions -- then your so-called "freedom" comes at the compromising expense of their security, and they most certainly should have "control over" that, without question.

 

[Ontologuy]

I disagree with you.

Yes .. with a handle like LiberalAvenger, that's not coming as a big shock.

There are many old people who smoke pot for medical and pleasure purposes. HAVEN'T YOU EVER HEARD OF THE BABY BOOMERS?

Okay .. how do I take exception to that .. .. let me count the ways ...

1. Not all baby boomers are old.

2. The stereotype that "if you're a baby boomer, you are a pot-addict" is so ludicrous, I don't know when I'm going to stop laughing. :lol:

3. Your misue of "many" here with respect to relevant calibration is a glaring error.

4. Mixing "for medical and pleasure" in the same sentence as a rationalization for abusing pot is just sophistry.

5. One can be old and never have been a parent. Thus stating, in response to my presentations about parents and grandparents, that "old" people abuse pot is a major disconnect.

6. And, of course, the overwhelming vast majority of parents and grandparents simply don't abuse pot.

 

[Pinkie]

Oh please. :roll:

Surely you know that, though pot is a mix of properties, the greatest overriding property of pot is that it's a depressant.

Surely you know that an over-dose is drug-abuse slang for taking in enough of the drug for that person so that it causes damage and even death.

And, surely you know that when a depressant is over-dosed, it can cause 1) a significant slowdown of the central nervous system, 2) significant reduction in heart rate, 3) a significant drop in blood pressure, and 4) a significant impairment of respiratory functions .. all which can and do cause death ..

.. As the OP link to the law-enforcement coroners' reports of single-drug pot deaths validates ..

.. And as everyone not immersed in the "drug culture" most certainly knows and will freely admit.

You're simply spamming with meaningless attempts at obfuscation.

So, again, here are the appropriate replies for you: http://www.debatepolitics.com/health-care/135971-pot-kills-15.html#post1060898406 and http://www.debatepolitics.com/health-care/135971-pot-kills-21.html#post1060901259.

No, I don't know that I'd class marijuana as a depressant. I certainly don't consider it to be the pharmacological equivalent of barbituates, and I know of no way in which using marijuana could possibly cause death.

I suspect you don't either...but if you do, please share it.

 

[Pinkie]

O, and linking to other non-responsive posts you've made won't satisfy me. It shouldn't satisfy any reader.

If you have this dynamite data, why not share it?

How does pot kill?​

 

[Pinkie]

In reference to my other post, it does.



No, there is still a distinction between the two.



No, as I said there are two types of withdrawal. The studies blanket them all into "withdrawal".

Captain, surely there is a term to describe life-threatening or excrutiating withdrawal symptoms as from opiates or alcohol, and the possibility of discomfort upon cessation by a former marijuana user?

Isn't the mere fact that opiate addiction or alcohol withdrawal DTs will be observed in almost everyone who abuses those drugs, while only some marijuana users will experience distress of any degree or kind, some sort of differentiation between them?