Some Of The Real Cons Of Marijuana Use

[Bugman]

Law is not flawless. Some laws have had to change over the years, so illegality is only a con with respect to punishment that can be rendered.

Laws must be questioned and examined for their logical worth. If the costs of enforcing a law outweigh the benefits of enforcement, then that is a law that needs to change.

Indeed.See😛rohibition,also known as The Noble Experiment.That certainly worked out well.🙂

 

[Redmage]

You know, it seems as though the vast majority of the "cons" that I see on this tread come down to "It's illegal." That's why it's risky to buy. That's why quality is unpredictable. That's why violent cartels make money off it. The other issues (allegations of addiction, claims that it's a "gateway drug," etc.) are debateable at best, if not provably false.

So I have to wonder -- if the biggest problem with pot is the fact that it's illegal, then why should it be illegal?

 

[chaos]

The benefits of habitual Cannabis use far outweigh any negatives. As far as it leading to laziness... that only happens to people who already lazy. I use the stuff daily, and it motivates me entirely. It makes me enthusiastic about life and doing the things that i love.

And the insight that it brings is incredible, as with all psychedelics. Hard drugs, like alcohol, cocaine, and nicotine, lead to unanalyzed, obsessive, behavior. Psychedelics, force us to constantly re-evaluate our values, and to break patterns. We're able to better gaze into our own psyches, and for me, leads to greater empathy and compassion. It helps me gain a broader perspective.
I even notice an increase in my athletic performance after use.

Spirituality and Religion originate for the use of cannabis and other psychedelics.

 

[CurtWild]

i always LOL at the 'Pot is good/bad' debate

here it is....

potheads: rabble rabble pot is fine. I am ok and i smoke tons

non smokers: rabble rabble pot is bad. you will die

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

both sides always provide shitty links with biased "facts"

it's a lose/lose argument and i have been on both sides

as a former pothead i say smoke up.....just make sure you can handle your shit

as a future drug counselor i say don't do it..... it's not worth the trouble

 

[xionking]

First of all, I smoke weed nearly every day and have no problem getting up in the morning, going to work, etc, just like many people. What you are saying is the exception, not the norm. Some people can't handle certain things, and like I said, probably have underlying issues.



I have no idea what choof is, and what I said wasn't a useless statement. It was fact. See here: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_marijuana_addictive
But some make a habit of it, forming a psychological habit in which people THINK they need it to function, however if they stopped taking it, would not suffer any physical withdrawal symptoms.



So, of course I wouldn't recommend driving after having smoked weed (or drinking alcohol). That's pretty much a given. And I think the guy you knew had problems that were more than just having a marijuana habit.



Devastating? Not nearly as devastating as alcohol or even tobacco. Lets be real here.

Also, let's keep in mind this gateway drug thing, is a theory.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_drug

Annie,

Caffeine is a stimulant, Marijuana is a depressant.

Here's some proper info to enlighten you. Wikipedia is not considered a source for 'factual' information.

Australian Drug Information
http://www.druginfo.adf.org.au/druginfo/drugs/drugfacts/cannabis.html#Cannabis and psychosis

DEA
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/marijuana.html#5

About.com
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/bldea050426_4.htm

New South Wales Department of Health
http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/factsheets/drugAndAlcohol/marijuana.html

Enjoy.

-Xionking

(GR violation - Jeff)

 

[Redmage]

Caffeine is a stimulant, Marijuana is a depressant.

Not exactly. Pharmacologically THC - the active component of pot - is a euphoriant and an analgesic. Its effects differ markedly from classic depressants such as alcohol, opiates, barbiturates, and benzodiazepines. It even has some stimulant qualities, such as restlessness, nervousness, and paranoia.

In fact though, all of this is irrelevant to Annie's point, which was that pot is no more addictive than caffeine. That happens to be true, and it doesn't matter what pharmacological class the two substances fall into.

Here's some proper info to enlighten you. Wikipedia is not considered a source for 'factual' information.

We can discuss Wikipedia another time. Suffice it to say that serious scholars disagree with you. Again, though, the claim is irrelevant since most statements of fact on Wikipedia are sourced to references that can be verified.

Australian Drug Information
http://www.druginfo.adf.org.au/druginfo/drugs/drugfacts/cannabis.html#Cannabis and psychosis

DEA
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/marijuana.html#5

About.com
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/bldea050426_4.htm

New South Wales Department of Health
http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/factsheets/drugAndAlcohol/marijuana.html

Speaking of bad sources. Consider the possibility that articles written by government agencies charged with prosecuting pot users might not be the most unbiased sources about it. Even the article from About.com was written by a DEA agent.

Check some peer-reviewed literature. The addictive effects of pot are rare, mild, and occur mainly in the heaviest users. The same is true of most of the other listed problems. The articles refer coyly to "some studies" that "suggest" certain effects and ignore other studies that say just the opposite. And they fail to mention that it's very difficult to do research favorable to pot because the government controls access to the substances that researchers need.

 

[xionking]

Not exactly. Pharmacologically THC - the active component of pot - is a euphoriant and an analgesic. Its effects differ markedly from classic depressants such as alcohol, opiates, barbiturates, and benzodiazepines. It even has some stimulant qualities, such as restlessness, nervousness, and paranoia.

In fact though, all of this is irrelevant to Annie's point, which was that pot is no more addictive than caffeine. That happens to be true, and it doesn't matter what pharmacological class the two substances fall into.

We can discuss Wikipedia another time. Suffice it to say that serious scholars disagree with you. Again, though, the claim is irrelevant since most statements of fact on Wikipedia are sourced to references that can be verified.

Speaking of bad sources. Consider the possibility that articles written by government agencies charged with prosecuting pot users might not be the most unbiased sources about it. Even the article from About.com was written by a DEA agent.

Check some peer-reviewed literature. The addictive effects of pot are rare, mild, and occur mainly in the heaviest users. The same is true of most of the other listed problems. The articles refer coyly to "some studies" that "suggest" certain effects and ignore other studies that say just the opposite. And they fail to mention that it's very difficult to do research favorable to pot because the government controls access to the substances that researchers need.

I believe that there is enough evidence to suggest that long term marijuana usage does have severe side affects. Call up any drugline and they will tell you that marijuana negatively irritates the brain.

I studied 'Drugs, Crime and Society' as a Criminology subject at uni, read plenty of academic texts discussing in heavy detail, the impact drugs have on the individual, as well as society. Much of the written materials suggested similar information as these Government websites. Call it 'bias' if you will, Redimage, but the information is there, and it concurs with the journals and writings I've read at school.

Ahh, I put two Australian websites there because I thought there'd be a chance that someone would say that using government websites as a source of information is in itself bias. Well, here in Australia, particularly with Marijuana, the Government takes more of a harminimisation approach than a zero tolerance approach. For example, if I get dicked with weed, I'll probably just get told to go home and smoke privately.

So, in saying that, I think those links I put up are reliable sources, because the information is being presented not with the intention to catch the 'pot user', but with the intention to present the information truthfully so that families are aware of the dangers.

However, you could be right with the DEA agent link. I must have more faith in my Government then you have in yours.

My uni, Monash Uni laid a blanket rule down saying that wikipedia is not allowed to be used as a primary source of information. It's a uni of over 20,000 people, and following this, Deakin University implemented the same rule, then Melbourne Uni. And whilst information is referenced on wikipedia, one person can write whatever the hell they want.

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_faq1.shtml
Is this 'peer-reviewed literature'?

I'd like to meet these 'serious scholars' you speak of. Or perhaps just lazy scholars? The same scholars you get your weed off?


-Xionking

 

[Redmage]

I believe that there is enough evidence to suggest that long term marijuana usage does have severe side affects. Call up any drugline and they will tell you that marijuana negatively irritates the brain.

Again, you choose a source that is specifically dedicated to discouraging people from using drugs. Of course they're going to say that. They'll probably even believe it.

I studied 'Drugs, Crime and Society' as a Criminology subject at uni, read plenty of academic texts discussing in heavy detail, the impact drugs have on the individual, as well as society.

And I studied pharmacology and medicinal chemistry at the University of Illinois Health Sciences Center, Chicago. I'll put my training in this area up against yours.

I'd like to meet these 'serious scholars' you speak of. Or perhaps just lazy scholars? The same scholars you get your weed off?

I've never used pot, so the weak attempt at provocation doesn't impress me. Haven't even been drunk in about 30 years. I just happen to understand how this drug and others work, from a scientific perspective.

As I said, we can discuss Wikipedia in depth at another time. Your objections are irrelevant here because a)anything in Wikipedia is sourced to authorities that you can check to your heart's content, and b)nothing I've said was referenced to Wikipedia.

 

[Mephistopheles]

I'd like to meet these 'serious scholars' you speak of. Or perhaps just lazy scholars? The same scholars you get your weed off?


-Xionking

Here you go. Now please everyone shut up about the medical facts untill you have read this article.

It's a 600 kb PDF which is too large to upload to the forum so I zipped it.

If you're not into medical or statistic mumbo jumbo just read the conclusion; it provides an answer to this thread.

 

[Redmage]

Here you go. Now please everyone shut up about the medical facts untill you have read this article.

Actually you should read several. I can give you a list if you like.

And in any case, do read carefully. For example, the various negative effects cited in the article you provided are mainly associated with the use of pot at a young age - generally before the age of 15. Few if any who advocate legalization think that marijuana should be used by children. To the contrary, legalizing it would reduce its use by minors, because legal pot could be sold only by licensed vendors, just like tobacco and alcohol.

Any teen can tell you that under the current climate it's actually easier for them to get pot than it is to get booze. If it were legal that would not be the case.

 

[Mephistopheles]

Actually you should read several. I can give you a list if you like.

And in any case, do read carefully. For example, the various negative effects cited in the article you provided are mainly associated with the use of pot at a young age - generally before the age of 15. Few if any who advocate legalization think that marijuana should be used by children. To the contrary, legalizing it would reduce its use by minors, because legal pot could be sold only by licensed vendors, just like tobacco and alcohol.

Any teen can tell you that under the current climate it's actually easier for them to get pot than it is to get booze. If it were legal that would not be the case.

Indeed, further study is needed on the effects of marihuana use in adults. But I consider it to be a decent review article and it surely does cover alot of the 'facts' that have been tossed around in this thread.

 

[xionking]

Here you go. Now please everyone shut up about the medical facts untill you have read this article.

It's a 600 kb PDF which is too large to upload to the forum so I zipped it.

If you're not into medical or statistic mumbo jumbo just read the conclusion; it provides an answer to this thread.

Good article. I've read that one before.

-Xionking

 

[chicago]

Annie,

Caffeine is a stimulant, Marijuana is a depressant.

THC which is in marijuana has been described as many things, including a depressant, but I wasn't comparing the two in terms of how they affect you, I was comparing them in their level of addictiveness.

No wonder you feel left out. You can't disagree with someone in a discussion thread without calling people names like a pissed off little kid. It's like you've perpetually fallen off the wrong side of the bed.

 

[Redmage]

Indeed, further study is needed on the effects of marihuana use in adults.

No, that's not the problem. Many studies have been performed on the effects of marijuana in adults. Those effects simply aren't as serious they are in young people. So a series of studies that show negative effects on young users are useful, but should not be extrapolated to apply to marijuana use as is normally proposed.

But I consider it to be a decent review article and it surely does cover alot of the 'facts' that have been tossed around in this thread.

There's nothing wrong with the article. We just need to be mindful of what it really does and does not say.

 

[Bizkit]

Call up any drugline and they will tell you that marijuana negatively irritates the brain.

 

[Sanhael]

Cons to the drug? It's illegal in most places, meaning it's not regulated, kids in high school say it's easier to get than alcohol, sometimes it's laced, etc.

If it were legal, it could be taxed, regulated, and thus safer and not as easily accessible by kids under 18 or 21 or whathaveyou.

Another con? People say it makes you lazy and stupid. Although there are no current laws against being either of those things.

I'd say, like anything, if you're paying for weed instead of for your electricity, and smoking it instead of tending to responsibilities, it can be a problem.

Possibly the best response I've seen yet; A.H. hits the nail on the head. Marijuana's debilitating effects are far less disabling than those of alcohol, which as it stands is available primarily in locations requiring driving to reach. Where I used to live, the only way to buy a six-pack of beer was at a bar; alcohol was state-regulated. Beer was sold in "beer stores" separate from other liquor, but could only be purchased by the case... so, to buy beer, you had to either (a) drive somewhere, the primary function of which is social drinking, or (b) buy a large quantity.

Marijuana itself is far less addicting than such substances as soda pop and fast food; many of those who would claim that marijuana is addicting would rapidly slam any motion to ban either of the previous items for that reason.

People with addictive personalities do exist, but that can apply to just about anything; any food, drink, substance, entertainment device, or personal superstition can become a habit. Having an addictive personality can also make a substance that is addictive in and of itself much more so, for that matter.

 

[xionking]

So, wait...am I to understand that the general consensus here is that marijuana does not irritate the brain, and that it has very little adverse side affects? Understandably, it is of growing concern within younger generations, due to the potential damage it can do to brain that is not fully developed. I mean, I've been smoking weed consistently for four years, and my doctor still wants me to be aware of the "very real" dangers of smoking pot.

Ryan, what's so funny about what I've said?
- I've had to call a drugline before, my sister also and we were told by the people on the other end that marijuana has the potential to destroy our lives. Now, until you can actually provide something that doesn't include a photo of your mother, I'd appreciate it if you didn't laugh at the statement I made, which was "call any drugline and they will tell you that marijuana negatively irritates the brain".

Annie, Choof is weed, and I called you a 'dumbass' because the context in which the word "choof" was being used used, made it quite obvious that the word "choof" was slang for weed, bud, mary jane, pot, whatever. 'Choof' is a common name for it here.

I appoligise if it insulted you. But I didn't fall off the wrong side of the bed. In fact, there's only one side of my bed to get out from, because it's against a wall. I arise from the right side of the bed all the time, which just so happens to be the left side.

-Xionking

 

[Bizkit]

Ryan, what's so funny about what I've said?
-

To be honest,the picture really has nothing to do with the point you are trying to make.I just found that pic today and the words ''negatively irritates the brain'' seemed to fit it perfectly.

As far as the photo of my mother comment I just noticed,let's not get out of line.😀

 

[Redmage]

So, wait...am I to understand that the general consensus here is that marijuana does not irritate the brain, and that it has very little adverse side affects?

Hamburgers have "adverse side effects." And some pretty serious ones too, such as high blood pressure, stroke, obesity, and death. The questions are...

1) How likely are the side effects?
2) How much control does the user have over whether or not they develop?
3) How much freedom should someone have to risk those effects if he or she so chooses?

By far the most dangerous side effect of marijuana is the risk that comes with smoke inhalation. That's roughly comparable to the danger of smoking tobacco, except that nicotine is far more addictive than THC is. And even those risks can be minimized by using a vaporiser, or by eating the plant rather than smoking it.

And yet we consider the risks of tobacco to be socially acceptable and the personal business of the smoker, and insist only that those who want to use tobacco do so in ways that minimize the risks to others. Tobacco kills 400,000 people a year in the United States. All illegal and prescription drugs combined kill fewer than 20,000. Until those who oppose marijuana demonstrate that it's more dangerous on the whole than red meat or tobacco, they're just going to look silly complaining about it.

As for this business about marijuana "irritating the brain," I have no idea what that means. The only sensible medical meaning for that claim would be that marijuana causes inflammation or swelling in the brain, and it definitely does not do that.

 

[Mephistopheles]

Indeed. Don't blame the drugs for your addiction; you must only blame yourself.

 

[cabalist]

As for this business about marijuana "irritating the brain," I have no idea what that means. The only sensible medical meaning for that claim would be that marijuana causes inflammation or swelling in the brain, and it definitely does not do that.

Just catching up a bit with this forum after a few days away, yeah, I had to laugh at the repeated reference to marijuana being a "brain irritant". Can't get much more scientific than that, can it? lol
Saw quite a few other silly references in this thread to things based on little or nothing but personal anecdotal "evidence", where nothing was offered in the way of evidence to show an actual causal relationship with marijuana, and citations to obvious biased sources -- in short, all the usual weak anti-pot propaganda, presented with all the usual drama with a lack of anything of substance to support it, but that's all been fairly soundly rebutted here by now.

 

[Dussicar]

Reading about all of the horrible facts of pot use and its adverse, destructive and devient effects on the human brain in this thread is the reason why I thank Jesus that I am an alcoholic.

 

[cabalist]

Reading about all of the horrible facts of pot use and its adverse, destructive and devient effects on the human brain in this thread is the reason why I thank Jesus that I am an alcoholic.

Jesus and alcohol sounds like an extremely dangerous mixture to me...but this may be the wrong forum for that discussion. 😉

 

[xionking]

I find it very scary that people here believe that marijuana does little harm.

-Xionking

 

[cabalist]

I find it very scary that people here believe that marijuana does little harm.

From having just read this thread after a few days away, my impression is that you must scare pretty easily. In fact, marijuana itself does cause little if any harm, and I've seen you provide absolutely no credible evidence in this thread to the contrary, in fact no real evidence at all, but little other than the all-too-typical unfounded scare propaganda, as I said above. Simply saying it doesn't make it so. In fact, you've provided nothing in this thread that I've seen to lend substance to your "fear". By contrast, the dangers of alcohol are extremely well-documented.

Is marijuana completely without potential dangers? Of course not. As has been suggested by others here, nothing is, including red meat and even milk. But I haven't heard anyone proposing laws against them. Again, you must scare very easily.