Some Of The Real Cons Of Marijuana Use

[xionking]

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.

Cabalist, could you provide me the information that says that marijuana itself causes little if any harm?

I put up four links providing information, and when I was told that they were bias links, I explained why I put them up, particularly the 2 Australian links. So, maybe you should go over that again before jumping to conclusions.

-Xionking

 

[Mephistopheles]

Cabalist, could you provide me the information that says that marijuana itself causes little if any harm?

I put up four links providing information, and when I was told that they were bias links, I explained why I put them up, particularly the 2 Australian links. So, maybe you should go over that again before jumping to conclusions.

-Xionking

The reason why you are continually saying that marihuana is dangerous is because you apparently became addicted yourself and you want to blame marihuana for it. Now if you were a heroin addict it would be different, but weed addiction just requires a bit of backbone.

Just stop blaming the drugs for your own inability to quit smoking weed.

 

[xionking]

The reason why you are continually saying that marihuana is dangerous is because you apparently became addicted yourself and you want to blame marihuana for it. Now if you were a heroin addict it would be different, but weed addiction just requires a bit of backbone.

Just stop blaming the drugs for your own inability to quit smoking weed.

(GRV...not the obscenity, but rather the content..............Q)

Thanks.

-Xionking

 

[cabalist]

Cabalist, could you provide me the information that says that marijuana itself causes little if any harm?

That information has been readily available in lots of places for many years, but frankly it isn't my place to prove marijuana safe. Unless you can prove it unsafe, it's "safe" by default. But I'll provide information documenting marijuana's safety as soon as you produce well-documented peer-reviewed studies in which milk has been proven absolutely incapable of causing any kind of harm to anyone -- including the lactose-intolerant, for example. And preferably a study conducted by someone other than a dairy product company. Fair enough? 😉

I put up four links providing information, and when I was told that they were bias links, I explained why I put them up, particularly the 2 Australian links. So, maybe you should go over that again before jumping to conclusions.

I did some pretty extensive reading about studies on marijuana use many years ago, and in fact it has been studied rather thoroughly for many years now and I seriously doubt any major breakthrough discoveries about its dangers have been made anytime recently or we likely all would have heard about it by now. And I'm sure many of us, including myself, can offer plenty of anecdotal evidence to counter your own personal experience. And, truthfully, all the scare propaganda is just getting a little old by now.

The reason why you are continually saying that marihuana is dangerous is because you apparently became addicted yourself and you want to blame marihuana for it. Now if you were a heroin addict it would be different, but weed addiction just requires a bit of backbone.

Just stop blaming the drugs for your own inability to quit smoking weed.

Yep. It sounds like he's scapegoating the substance for his own personal issues, but it's hardly the first time I've seen that old song and dance.

 

[cabalist]

Off topic now with the GRV edit.

Q

 

[Redmage]

Cabalist, could you provide me the information that says that marijuana itself causes little if any harm?

If you want a really thorough examination, try Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts. You can likely get it through your library.

Chart of Compiled Drug Deaths in the US

Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine


New England Journal of Medicine

American Journal of Public Health

Extensive figures on mortality among marijuana users, and comparisons with other drugs, compiled from the CDC

Compared to other drugs (including tobacco and alcohol), marijuana really does cause very little harm. There are people who should not use it: children, pregnant women, recovering drug addicts, and anyone operating a vehicle, for example. It is possible to over-use it. It is possible to use it as a crutch to avoid dealing with other problems. But if used in moderation it is one of the safest drugs known.

You've been making a lot of claims with little or no support. The websites you linked offer little to back up the claims they make, and tend to have a clear bias. You seize eagerly on vague terms (like "brain irritation") that have no clear medical meaning. Basically, you come to this debate predisposed to believe that marijuana is evil, and you embrace anything that confirms your prejudices with little or no critical examination.

 

[xionking]

Nah, it couldn't be a personal issue. 😉

Haha, you are a funny ****, aren't ya?

I've never allowed my marijuana use get in the way of what I am trying to achieve in my life. If you or Mephistopheles are assuming that I'm trying to blame weed for my own issues, or "scapegoating" as you put it, I wouldn't say that's the case at all.

I've never allowed marijuana to get in the way of what I'm trying to achieve in life. My goals and ambition are not tainted or changed as a result of smoking dope. I wake up, I go to work and I study.

In other words, I control it, it doesn't control me.

I've seen friends and family destroy their lives on dope. It was the first drug my sister tried, and ultimately it was a gateway drug. From there, she moved onto harder stuff, until eventually it got the better of her.

Now, I'm not saying that it's a "gateway drug" for everybody, but I can't stress enough that saying that it "is not a gateway drug" is misleading.

It is also misleading to put the harm of Marijuana in the same category as red meat or cheeseburgers or even milk.

It's my opinion that if you are saying marijuana is safe by 'default', then not only are you dismissing these websites that list the potential harm it can do, but you're also seeking comfort in the information you would like or prefer to hear.

Like this website:
http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

It's exactly what I'd prefer to hear, the myths and realities that pretty much conclude that there's very little wrong with smoking dope, even heavily. But unfortunately, it's just not as clear cut as that.

-Xionking

 

[cabalist]

If you want a really thorough examination, try Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts. You can likely get it through your library.

Chart of Compiled Drug Deaths in the US

Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine


New England Journal of Medicine

American Journal of Public Health

Extensive figures on mortality among marijuana users, and comparisons with other drugs, compiled from the CDC

Compared to other drugs (including tobacco and alcohol), marijuana really does cause very little harm. There are people who should not use it: children, pregnant women, recovering drug addicts, and anyone operating a vehicle, for example. It is possible to over-use it. It is possible to use it as a crutch to avoid dealing with other problems. But if used in moderation it is one of the safest drugs known.

You've been making a lot of claims with little or no support. The websites you linked offer little to back up the claims they make, and tend to have a clear bias. You seize eagerly on vague terms (like "brain irritation") that have no clear medical meaning. Basically, you come to this debate predisposed to believe that marijuana is evil, and you embrace anything that confirms your prejudices with little or no critical examination.

Thanks for the "backup". In fact, I read a number of books on the subject, possibly even including the one you just mentioned, a number of years ago, too long ago to even recall their titles now. But I guess it may be a little easier for you to find the data more readily than myself, given your background. And I have to admit that I'm still taken aback whenever I still occasionally see the same tired old anti-marijuana propaganda being dragged out, always finding it hard to believe that people still "buy" all that old rhetoric after all these years.

 

[cabalist]

Haha, you are a funny ****, aren't ya?

And you're a rather foul-mouthed one, aren't you? Did all that pot use lead to that? In which case, maybe you've proven your point after all. 😉

I've never allowed my marijuana use get in the way of what I am trying to achieve in my life. If you or Mephistopheles are assuming that I'm trying to blame weed for my own issues, or "scapegoating" as you put it, I wouldn't say that's the case at all.

I've never allowed marijuana to get in the way of what I'm trying to achieve in life. My goals and ambition are not tainted or changed as a result of smoking dope. I wake up, I go to work and I study.

In other words, I control it, it doesn't control me.

I've seen friends and family destroy their lives on dope. It was the first drug my sister tried, and ultimately it was a gateway drug. From there, she moved onto harder stuff, until eventually it got the better of her.

Now, I'm not saying that it's a "gateway drug" for everybody, but I can't stress enough that saying that it "is not a gateway drug" is misleading.

To the contrary, I think calling it a "gateway" drug is very misleading. What this "proves" isn't that marijuana is a "gateway drug". In fact, it only proves that some people who use marijuana go on to use other substances. As has been said for "eons" now, ever since this fallacious claim first started being made, some people fed on "mother's milk" also went on to "harder stuff". There's simply no evidence that anything inherent in marijuana causes anyone to use other substances or to "'abuse" marijuana or other substances. The very fact, as you've just admitted yourself, that not everyone (or even a majority) of those who use marijuana "graduate" to more harmful substances should be adequate evidence that it is a matter of what people choose to do with their lives -- NOT anything inherent in marijuana "leading" to use of other substances.

It is also misleading to put the harm of Marijuana in the same category as red meat or cheeseburgers or even milk.

I didn't "put" marijuana in any category. But the comparison is valid in the sense that virtually nothing has no potential for harm. Different substances or activities, when engaged in in a reckless manner, can cause different kinds of harm, and yes, in that sense they can't be compared. But I don't think anyone here has argued that marijuana can't be used in what might be called a reckless fashion, as can anything else. On the other hand, it hasn't earned the reputation for the great danger that it has been charged with by some. As Redmage explained (and provided sources which I was less prepared to do), it's relatively harmless, when compared to many other widely-used substances, including many legal ones.

It's my opinion that if you are saying marijuana is safe by 'default', then not only are you dismissing these websites that list the potential harm it can do, but you're also seeking comfort in the information you would like or prefer to hear.

I'm not "seeking comfort". Although I have rather extensive past experience with marijuana (even selling it for a few years to support my own use of it, as I think the statute of limitations has long run out enough to now freely admit), I've used it only on extremely rare occasions in recent years by personal choice. Not because of any great concern about any "dangers", but simply because it doesn't hold that much interest to me in relation to the cost and other factors.

So it has nothing to do with what I'd prefer not to hear, but more to do with the fact that I've been hearing the same boring scare stories for years, often from people with much less experience with it than I've had in my life. And I've seen it's "harmful" effects on friends, as I mentioned in fact recently in another thread. But I don't blame marijuana for the fact that they have chosen to use it a little too frequently and/or constantly for my preferences. And even that I've seen as having caused no particularly great harm to themselves as much as it has made them a PITA for others sometimes -- such as the brief anecdote I offered in another thread recently referring to an ex-girlfriend and her grown daughter with whom I tried to live for a couple months a few years ago. But even with them getting high, when possible on a daily basis, the problems that led to were extremely minor as compared with what may have been likely had they been alcoholics -- and my father was a somewhat severe one of those during a fair portion of the time I was growing up, so I've had the chance to make the comparison.

Like this website:
http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

It's exactly what I'd prefer to hear, the myths and realities that pretty much conclude that there's very little wrong with smoking dope, even heavily. But unfortunately, it's just not as clear cut as that.

-Xionking

"Wrong" is ultimately a moral proclamation, and inevitably subjective. Like anything else, "heavy" use has more potential for leading to problems than "light" use. But, yes, my own experience is that even heavy use of marijuana is typically less problematic than heavy use of many other substances. And again, there's no credible evidence that marijuana use inherently leads to use of more harmful substances. The "gateway drug" theory is and always has been little but anti-drug hysteria/propaganda. People use marijuana by choice, and if they choose to use more potentially harmful substances, likewise it's only by their own choice. Blame your sister and your friends for their own behavior. Allowing them to use marijuana as a scapegoat, or using it as one yourself on their behalf, is just a copout as far as I'm concerned, just seeking to pin the blame for people's behavior on someone or something other than themselves. And that, in my opinion, is "wrong".

 

[ticklkitten]

Okay, I only read most of these before this reply... sorry, I was bored long before I stopped reading

I've smoked pot... a lot of it in the past. My ex was a dealer and used to keep a pound in the freezer on a regular basis.

BUT I DO think it is a gateway drug for a lot of people. It was for a lot of friends in college and was for me. That's a decent study if I say so. I had friends who couldn't even go to WalMart without being high. It just wasn't for me long term. I am a hyper person.

I'm of mixed opinion regarding the legality. I know a LOT of cancer patients would feel less nauseous because of it. That kind of nausea is relentless.... we are talking just allowing somone to be able to live their life.

I also agree that alcohol and nicotine are just as bad. Actually. pot is supposed to be worse because it's not filtered.

Keep in mind if you smoke you are at a FAR greater risk for lung cancer. But it has amazing results for those already diagnosed with cancer and looking for relief.

I'm torn on the subject

 

[cabalist]

Okay, I only read most of these before this reply... sorry, I was bored long before I stopped reading

I've smoked pot... a lot of it in the past. My ex was a dealer and used to keep a pound in the freezer on a regular basis.

BUT I DO think it is a gateway drug for a lot of people. It was for a lot of friends in college and was for me. That's a decent study if I say so. I had friends who couldn't even go to WalMart without being high. It just wasn't for me long term. I am a hyper person.

In order for it to mean much to call it a "gateway" drug, I think one would have to show an actual causal relationship between marijuana use and use of other, potentially more dangerous, drugs. In fact, most people I've personally known of my own generation, if not all, have smoked marijuana, and of them I've known of a very small number who ever "graduated" to so-called "harder" drugs. In fact, offhand I can only think of one, who eventually became a "crackhead", and his crack habit did ultimately lead to serious problems in his life, including a number of prison sentences. But even in his case, I don't see the rationale for blaming marijuana, since again, the vast majority of marijuana users I've known have never tried or ever even been tempted to try "crack" as far as I know. To call something a "gateway" just because it preceded something else just isn't reasonable. By that logic, why not accuse ice cream of being the ultimate "gateway drug" if someone tried it before smoking marijuana?

In fact, as has been suggested here before (in the P&R forum, actually), the only sense it which it might make some sense to call marijuana a "gateway drug", is in the sense that, in being illegal, one must have contact with "criminal elements" in order to secure it. And in so doing, this might well make one more likely to have contact with people trafficking in other illicit substances. But of course, that's a situation created by the illegal nature of the drug, not something inherent in the drug itself.

I'm of mixed opinion regarding the legality. I know a LOT of cancer patients would feel less nauseous because of it. That kind of nausea is relentless.... we are talking just allowing somone to be able to live their life.

The only people not in favor of legalization, in my opinion, are those who don't fully appreciate the great harm and expense its illegal status has created for society, particularly in relation to its relatively innocuous effects when compared to many legal substances. Prohibition should have taught everyone a lesson about that, but apparently people don't learn much from history.

I also agree that alcohol and nicotine are just as bad. Actually. pot is supposed to be worse because it's not filtered.

Pharmacologically, alcohol and tobacco are far worse, as data at the sources Redmage provided above shows. As far as the smoke goes, of course that's different from the pharmacological effects per se, but it seems to me that whether it's a little worse or a little better than tobacco in that regard is a relatively minor consideration, especially considering that that's not the only possible method of ingestion, but it's probably currently the most efficient, which is important considering the relative cost of the drug, which its illegal status contributes to. If it was legal and cheap enough, it could be eaten as effectively, if somewhat slower to take effect that way. And of course, the active ingredient could also be available in pill or capsule form as is currently the case with many other drugs.

Keep in mind if you smoke you are at a FAR greater risk for lung cancer. But it has amazing results for those already diagnosed with cancer and looking for relief.

I'm torn on the subject

Since people who want to use it are going to either way, I can't see how it could cause any greater problems if it was legalized, and it would alleviate a lot of the problems and costs its illegal status creates. I don't think anyone here is arguing that taking marijuana or any other drugs is necessarily a "good" thing, but only that making a relatively safe drug such as marijuana illegal ultimately creates more problems, and more serious ones, than it solves. To me it seems a pretty simple lesson which we should have learned from Prohibition, but unfortunately, apparently we didn't.

 

[xionking]

Ok, I'm fairly sick of this thread and the bullshit weed rhetoric that's being spoken here.

Let's talk about peer reviewed articles.

A peer reviewed article, thesis or piece of research is information written by a credible and reliable "expert" who has tested arguments for themselves to determine whether they can find weak arguments, unfounded assumptions, and over generalsations from small samples (testing on two people, or testing on monkeys for fuck sake) to support their claims. What this leads to, (as seen on erowid.org, or the myths website about marijuana), are bold assertions that are made ("it's true because i say so"), and sometimes even errors of logic.

A peer review will explain where they found their info, so if people here are gonna give me shit for the information I provide just because it isn't "peer reviewed" or you believe it to be bias, then Mephistopheles and Cabalist, step up to the plate and show me where these fuckers got their info yeh?

Saying shit like "cheeseburgers will do more harm" is a false comparsion, marijuana and cheeseburgers and milk and red meat are completely unrelated so you'd best find some better arguments.

Speaking of 'false assumptions', you guys assume I use marijuana as a scapegoat so I do not accept responsibility for my own personal problems, sooo...where can you provide me with the peer reviewed articles that support that claim? Hmmmm??

Ok, so I'll write this in bold, so that the OP can actually get something out of this thread, THC stores into the fat of tissue which interferes with the brain's chemical processes, and since the brain is composed of a lot of fatty tissue, you guys can put two and two together, yeh? Oh, yeah, hence why I use the word "irritation".

And finally, here's a little story for you fine people...when my sister was heavily smoking (she's a very heavy tobacco and weed smoker), my concerned father went to our family GP on his own to gather some information. Now, because my father is a non-smoker (both tobacco and marijuana), the family GP had no reason to lie, or to beat around the bush or to just make up shit, because I don't believe family GPs are paid to make up shit, especially a trustworthy family doctor of 30 years, and this is what he told my father. He said that marijuana smoke is 50 times more carsinogenic than tobacco smoke.

Mr. OP, I suggest if you're looking for some real info, you should see your family GP, or do your own research, because all you're gonna get here are a bunch of people trying to convince you that marijuana is harmless because a bunch of "experts" say so. Go to health resources, and don't worry about whether people here would consider it bias or unbias, because health resources are not out to lie to you, they are there to state FACT.

Mephistopheles or Cabalist, could you please provide a reputable peer study claim that says that marijuana smoke is less casinogenic than tobacco smoke? Perhaps a peer study that won't compare the dangers of marijuana to the dangers of starburst candy? And perhaps a study that has a larger sample, not just a few people and a few cute little stoned monkeys? Thanks.

------Insert Link Here------


-Xionking

 

[cabalist]

And finally, here's a little story for you fine people...when my sister was heavily smoking (she's a very heavy tobacco and weed smoker), my concerned father went to our family GP on his own to gather some information. Now, because my father is a non-smoker (both tobacco and marijuana), the family GP had no reason to lie, or to beat around the bush or to just make up shit, because I don't believe family GPs are paid to make up shit, especially a family doctor of 30 years, and this is what he told my father. He said that marijuana smoke is 50 times more carsinogenic than tobacco smoke.

Mephistopheles or Cabalist, could you please provide a reputable peer study claim that says that marijuana smoke is less casinogenic than tobacco smoke? Thanks.

If your best evidence is that "your family GP said so", I hardly consider that anything significant to refute. Where is the actual evidence to support his claim that it's "50 times more carsinogenic (sic) than tobacco smoke"? (It's spelled "carcinogenic", by the way.) Do you actually have any, or is the best you have just this hearsay statement that "well, a GP once said so"? You think that because someone is a doctor that he isn't required to support his claims with evidence? Is the fact that he's a GP supposed to make him a scientific expert on the effects of marijuana? Personally I don't believe it until I see something of substance to back up such a claim, which I haven't yet.

Aside from that, offhand I can't recall noticing anyone here arguing that marijuana smoke is less carcinogenic than tobacco smoke, so I'm not sure why you're asking someone to prove a claim which I'm not sure anyone here made.

 

[xionking]

If your best evidence is that "your family GP said so", I hardly consider that anything significant to refute. Where is the actual evidence to support his claim that it's "50 times more carsinogenic (sic) than tobacco smoke"? (It's spelled "carcinogenic", by the way.) Do you actually have any, or is the best you have just this hearsay statement that "well, a GP once said so"? You think that because someone is a doctor that he isn't required to support his claims with evidence? Is the fact that he's a GP supposed to make him a scientific expert on the effects of marijuana? Personally I don't believe it until I see something of substance to back up such a claim, which I haven't yet.

Yeah, you know what, little man?

That doctor has over 40 years of experience behind him, and that's enough for me to think that he is significant enough to listen to. I am not talking to some kid off the street, this doctor has a number of degrees and is legally obligated to keep up to date with health issues affecting the community, whether it be drug related or whatever. In other words, he is not paid to lie. These are family GPs, Cabalist, yeh? The type of family GPs that look out for family's best interest when it comes to health. Not some wanker who thought there was a flaw in an argument about weed.

If you went to your GP and asked him what the dangers of smoking Marijuana was, and he listed all the dangers for you, would you honestly ask him to provide info to back that up? If so, then perhaps there's some trust issues there.

It's been stated a number of times in this thread by numerous people that marijuana smoke is no more harmful than tobacco smoke. Re-read through the thread, perhaps and you will see. I'm not gonna help you out on that one, cuz you're not that lazy.

Calabist, you keep talking about substance, man, like the info I'm providing is less reputable than the weed rhetoric coming out of your typing fingers, so I suggest you cough up some substance yourself, stop being a hypocrite and show me some info to support your claims, Dude!

And it's all about context, mate. My father walked in concerned for his daughter's wellbeing, afraid she was in danger. The GP didn't come back with an "hearsay statement", he came back with the correct advice. You knobjockey.

-Xionking

P.S. A bloke walks into his GP, and his GP says, 'Mate, I've got some bad news and I've got some even worse news for you..."
The bloke says, "Omg, so what's the bad news?"
"You've only got 24 hours to live!"
The bloke says, "Jesus, what's the even worse news, Doc?
"I've been trying to call you since yesterday..."
Great joke, but for argument's sake, let's keep the joke going...
The bloke says, "I've only got 24 hours to live? How do you know?"
"Well, because I'm a doctor with a wealth of experience..."
The bloke says, "Is that the best you've got? I demand to see some info to support your claims..."

 

[cabalist]

Yeah, you know what, little man?

Name-calling is always a pretty weak argument, and I notice that you seem to fall back on it quite often.

That doctor has over 40 years of experience behind him, and that's enough for me to think that he is significant enough to listen to. I am not talking to some kid off the street, this doctor has a number of degrees and is legally obligated to keep up to date with health issues affecting the community. These are family GPs, Cabalist, yeh? The type of family GPs that look out for family's best interest when it comes to health. Not some wanker who thought there was a flaw in an argument about weed.

Because he's a doctor doesn't mean that he's knowledgeable in all areas of medical science, and having over 40 years of experience doesn't prove that he's scientifically up-to-date, as probably no doctors are in every area, any more than any scientist is. Again, because he's a doctor doesn't make him above the requirement to back up his claims with evidence just as any scientist must. Merely saying something is true because "a doctor said so" isn't exactly compelling evidence. A lot of doctors have been relatively ignorant about the effects of illicit drugs.

If you went to your GP and asked him what the dangers of smoking Marijuana was, and he listed all the dangers for you, would you honestly ask him to provide info to back that up? If so, then perhaps there's some trust issues there.

Yes, I would ask him to back it up, for the reasons I just stated.

It's been stated a number of times in this thread by numerous people that marijuana smoke is no more harmful than tobacco smoke. Re-read through the thread, perhaps and you will see. I'm not gonna help you out on that one, cuz you're not that lazy.

Well, I never said it, but I'll just say that I've seen no compelling evidence that marijuana smokers are 50 times more likely to get cancer than tobacco smokers are. Do you have any? Again, claiming that it's "50 times more carcinogenic" doesn't mean much with nothing to back it up -- which, again, thus far I haven't seen you provide.

Calabist, you keep talking about substance, man, like the info I'm providing is less reputable than the weed rhetoric coming out of your typing fingers, so I suggest you cough up some substance yourself, stop being a hypocrite and show me some info to support your claims, Dude!

Again, I've seen you offer nothing here compelling to refute which hasn't already been refuted in this thread.

P.S. A bloke walks into his GP, and his GP says, 'Mate, I've got some bad news and I've got some even worse news for you..."
The bloke says, "Omg, so what's the bad news?"
"You've only got 24 hours to live!"
The bloke says, "Jesus, what's the even worse news, Doc?
"I've been trying to call you since yesterday..."
Great joke, but for argument's sake, let's keep the joke going...
The bloke says, "I've only got 24 hours to live? How do you know?"
"Well, because I'm a doctor with a wealth of experience..."
The bloke says, "Is that the best you've got? I demand to see some info to support your claims..."

Okay joke, but hardly enlightening on this subject as far as I can tell.

 

[xionking]

Name-calling is always a pretty weak argument, and I notice that you seem to fall back on it quite often.



Because he's a doctor doesn't mean that he's knowledgeable in all areas of medical science, and having over 40 years of experience doesn't prove that he's scientifically up-to-date, as probably no doctors are in every area, any more than any scientist is. Again, because he's a doctor doesn't make him above the requirement to back up his claims with evidence just as any scientist must. Merely saying something is true because "a doctor said so" isn't exactly compelling evidence. A lot of doctors have been relatively ignorant about the effects of illicit drugs.

Well, I never said it, but I'll just say that I've seen no compelling evidence that marijuana smokers are 50 times more likely to get cancer than tobacco smokers are. Do you have any? Again, claiming that it's "50 times more carcinogenic" doesn't mean much with nothing to back it up -- which, again, thus far I haven't seen you provide.

Again, I've seen you offer nothing here compelling to refute which hasn't already been refuted in this thread.

Okay joke, but hardly enlightening on this subject as far as I can tell.

You expect me to provide you info just because you don't believe that a Family GP would be knowledgable in the affects of marijuana? Mate, 14 million Americans smoke weed, whether it be recreationally or heavily...I'm fairly certain that with a statistic like that, a GP would have to keep up to date on weed.

There's a number of reasons for this but I'll just state the most obvious one...

Because weed is becoming more and more socially acceptable, Doctors need to be equipped with the right info in order to tackle the problem.

All you're really showing is a complete lack of faith in doctors, a lack of faith in their ability to research correct info, (although, I'm pretty sure most GPs would have read peer-reviewed studies before) and pretty much that you'd rather find your info from these studies so ultimately, like I said, you can hear what you would rather hear.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2419713.stm
Here's an article...but you'll probably just say, "Yeah, but the media will put a spin on anything"...

Does me calling you "little man" really offend you enough to mention it? Sorry...

-Xionking

 

[cabalist]

You expect me to provide you info just because you don't believe that a Family GP would be knowledgable in the affects of marijuana? Mate, 14 million Americans smoke weed, whether it be recreationally or heavily...I'm fairly certain that with a statistic like that, a GP would have to keep up to date.

Statistics on marijuana usage are hardly relevant evidence of an individual doctor's level of knowledge in a particular area. You may make such an assumption, but I don't.

All you're really showing is a complete lack of faith in doctors, and pretty much that you'd rather find your info from "peer-reviewed studies"...so, like I said, you can read what you would rather hear.

I have a "complete lack of faith" in anyone who can't back up their claims with something more than "because I'm an 'expert' and I say so".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2419713.stm
Here's an article...but you'll probably just say, "Yeah, but the media will put a spin on anything"...

Does me calling you "little man" offend you enough to mention it, little man?

It doesn't offend me so much as it shows how desperate you are for an actual argument to support your claims. As for the article you cite:

A study by the British Lung Foundation found that just three cannabis joints a day cause the same damage as 20 cigarettes.

If we accept this finding, it suggests that smoking three joints a day has approximately the effect of smoking a pack of cigarettes a day. Okay, maybe true or maybe not, but if so I don't think this constitutes a particularly astonishing finding. It is smoke, after all.

Evidence shows that tar from cannabis cigarettes contains 50% more cancer causing carcinogens than tobacco.

Although the statement that it has "50% more cancer causing carcinogens" seems a bit redundant, claiming that it "contains 50% more carcinogens" than tobacco is a far cry from establishing that it's "50 times more carcinogenic".

But again, this is a point which I haven't even argued, as I think it's ultimately of limited relevance to the legal status of the drug. I don't believe tobacco should be illegal either. Just because a substance is potentially harmful is hardly sufficient justification for criminalizing it. If so, why are alcohol and tobacco legal?

 

[xionking]

But again, this is a point which I haven't even argued, as I think it's ultimately of limited relevance to the legal status of the drug. I don't believe tobacco should be illegal either. Just because a substance is potentially harmful is hardly sufficient justification for criminalizing it. If so, why are alcohol and tobacco legal?

So, why do you accept 'peer-reviewed studies' when it's just the same thing? 'I'm right because I'm an expert and I say so...' or 'I'm right because this expert did this test and wrote about it so I agree with it'.

But anyway, perhaps we won't see eye to eye on that one...

But you know what, man? That's a good question that I think about constantly. If alcohol is legal, why shouldn't marijauna be? You don't see a bunch of stoners brawling out the front of a nightspot.

I don't know the sure answer, but I'm certain there'd be obvious reasons.

Money probably plays a big part. It's no surprise that there is so much money made off alcohol and cigarettes, I paid $10aus for a Slate bourbon earlier tonight, and $15aus for a pack of B&H smooths 25s. As long as these corporations are profitting, cigarette lobbysts do their jobs well, and these fatcats in DC continue to receive some of this profitted money, I'm guessing smokes and alks will remain legal. Greed is a powerful trait.

I suggest that because of a lack of concrete evidence (as somewhat seen in this thread by all) , marijuana will remain illegal. I guess something I've gotten out of this thread is that cannabis is not a 'black & white' drug. There is still much to learn about the drug and its effects, both on the short term and long term.

Cabalist, let me ask you a question and I genuinely want to hear your answer. If alcohol were to be introduced now, do you think it would be legal or illegal?

-Xionking

 

[cabalist]

So, why do you accept 'peer-reviewed studies' when it's just the same thing? 'I'm right because I'm an expert and I say so...' or 'I'm right because this expert did this test and wrote about it so I agree with it'.

But anyway, perhaps we won't see eye to eye on that one...

I don't think a published study with all relevant details reported is even remotely like a doctor (or anyone) saying "because I'm an authority and I say so". Showing detailed evidence to support one's claim is a lot more compelling than simply saying "Well, I've read studies that say...", without even providing a reference to any such studies.

But you know what, man? That's a good question that I think about constantly. If alcohol is legal, why shouldn't marijauna be? You don't see a bunch of stoners brawling out the front of a nightspot.

I don't know the sure answer, but I'm certain there'd be obvious reasons.

Money probably plays a big part. It's no surprise that there is so much money made off alcohol and cigarettes, I paid $10aus for a Slate bourbon earlier tonight, and $15aus for a pack of B&H smooths 25s. As long as these corporations are profitting, cigarette lobbysts do their jobs well, and these fatcats in DC continue to receive some of this profitted money, I'm guessing smokes and alks will remain legal. Greed is a powerful trait.

Greed operates on both sides of the issue. Certain substances have been illegal for so long that an enormous number of jobs are based on their illegal status. And presumably those whose livelihood is based on such laws don't care much about the problems created by the crime such laws effectively create -- at least not when compared with losing their jobs. That seems just as much simple greed to me.

I suggest that because of a lack of concrete evidence (as somewhat seen in this thread by all) , marijuana will remain illegal. I guess something I've gotten out of this thread is that cannabis is not a 'black & white' drug. There is still much to learn about the drug and its effects, both on the short term and long term.

I'm not sure what you mean by a lack of concrete evidence causing it to remain illegal. Again I think one of the main reasons it remains illegal is because of greed. Those whose jobs depend on such laws aren't inclined to want to seek new forms of employment. And of course the criminal elements profit handily (and often violently) thanks to its current status as well.

Cabalist, let me ask you a question and I genuinely want to hear your answer. If alcohol were to be introduced now, do you think it would be legal or illegal?

I really can't answer that, except to say that I hope it would be legal, for the same reason pot should be -- because we've seen the effects of Prohibition. While I don't expect you to be an expert in American history (I'm not all that expert in it myself), if you aren't aware of the problems which that failed experiment created, I suggest you look into it. And current illicit drugs create essentially exactly the same problems, without really solving anything. A so-called war on drugs which hasn't made more progress in its supposed intent than it has for as many years as that has been the case stands little likelihood of ever solving as many problems as it creates. As some here have said, school kids still find it easier to obtain pot than alcohol. So after who knows how many dead bodies and the total economic and social expense of this many-decades long "war", what has it accomplished to justify its expense? Absolutely nothing that I can see.

 

[xionking]

What kind of jobs are reliant on marijuana remaining illegal? Well...accept for the drug dealer's job of course...

When I say 'concrete' evidence, I mean credible evidence that can't be argued against.

I don't know too much about American History but I know about prohibition. I can imagine how such a precedent would lead to ongoing problems in the 'war on drugs'.

I don't know if this has much to do with what you are saying, and it is kinda offtopic...but in Australia at the moment, there's big contraversies concerning whether or not safe ecstasy testing kits should be allowed in clubs and at major festivals. Harminimisation vs zero tolerance and so forth. It's crazy how much of a nousense the fatcats are when it comes to trying to achieve something that really shouldn't even be much of a decision to make when considering that lives can be potentially saved.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

-Xionking

 

[cabalist]

What kind of jobs are reliant on marijuana remaining illegal? Well...accept for the drug dealer's job of course...

While I don't offhand have precise statistics, somewhat sizable bureaucracies have grown around the drug law enforcement industry -- which it seems to me has become an industry its own right. Including, at least in the U.S., prison guards in order to man ever more overcrowded prisons, with a fairly large percentage (again, I don't have precise statistics to hand at the moment), of inmates being held for extensive terms on drug-related convictions -- not all of whom were/are violent criminals.

However the overcrowding of prisons resulting at least partially, if not largely, from overzealous drug law enforcement, has indirectly led to the early release of some violent criminals. While I don't have specific statistics on that at the moment either, I was "moved" to recently learn of the arrest of a suspect in the murder of an old high school friend of my girlfriend, the current suspect in that case having been released YEARS early from a prior conviction for sexual assault and battery and now being accused in the rape and murder of this young woman after he moved into her apartment building subsequent to his early release from prison. While he hasn't yet been convicted (as of the last news I've run across in the case), assuming there may be a high probability of his guilt in this case, as seems reasonable given all the known facts, had he not been released early she would likely still be alive today. And as prison overcrowding seems a likely factor in his early release, it's not hard for me to blame her death indirectly on a misguided so-called war on drugs.

And from personal experience, I myself was charged with sales of marijuana in my late teens for which, had I been found guilty, I would have faced a mandatory twenty year prison sentence in my state at that time -- for the horrendous crime of selling TWO JOINTS -- yes, you read that right, TWO joints -- to a police informant. Instead, while the prosecution's case had some weaknesses (including a virtual "open and closed case" of "entrapment" had my court-appointed lawyer been able to pull off his job adequately), I took my lawyer's advice and "copped a plea" to Possession for which I ultimately served two months in county jail plus two years probation. But had I opted to fight the original charge and lost, I wonder how many violent criminals might have ended up being released early from prison to ensure that I kept my mandatory bed there for 20 years for selling two joints to an informant who had actually "pressured" me into selling to him? These kinds of things are collateral expenses society pays for these laws, some people with their lives.

Of course, in addition to giving jobs to law enforcement, prison guards, lawyers, etc., many agencies make money providing "therapy" or "rehabilitation" to drug offenders, having basically a captive clientèle when courts offer "rehab" as an alternative to some drug offenders.

In short, the so-called War on Drugs has effectively become an established industry.

When I say 'concrete' evidence, I mean credible evidence that can't be argued against.

If people are insisting that something be proven absolutely beyond possible harmfulness of any kind to justify its being legal, they obviously set an impossible standard, higher than they do for many currently legal substances, including many legal drugs, far more than just tobacco and alcohol, and many of them, if not most of them, clearly having greater pharmacological dangers than marijuana. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to take a fatal dose of marijuana? How many such cases have you heard of? And how many currently legal over-the-counter or prescription drugs do you suppose are as difficult to take a dangerous overdose of? Very few, I suspect.

I don't know too much about American History but I know about prohibition. I can imagine how such a precedent would lead to ongoing problems in the 'war on drugs'.

It proved many decades ago that such a "war" can't work, and in fact can't solve as many problems as it creates. But, again, apparently people are too stupid to learn much from history.

I don't know if this has much to do with what you are saying, and it is kinda offtopic...but in Australia at the moment, there's big contraversies concerning whether or not safe ecstasy testing kits should be allowed in clubs and at major festivals. Harminimisation vs zero tolerance and so forth. It's crazy how much of a nousense the fatcats are when it comes to trying to achieve something that really shouldn't even be much of a decision to make when considering that lives can be potentially saved.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid I don't know enough about this controversy in Australia to comment on it.

 

[xionking]

Two joints?? Shit, man...that's some hard time right there...

It sounds ridiculous but I totally believe you because I've heard a fair bit about that kind of "zero tolerance approach" law enforcement have throughout the USA. I really would imagine police would have greater concerns on their minds, like crack, or Ice. Good to see them prioritising.

We have problems with overcrowding in prisons here at the moment too. But there's no way people who have committed serious crimes would be getting out earlier just to make room for a couple of stoners.

I've been dicked by police in public with 4 joints in my pocession as well as a 3fa (3grams) and I was very sternly told to go home and smoke in private.

If I lived anywhere that had such laws as a 20 year mandatory sentencing over a bit of weed, I'd most likely just not smoke anymore.

However, I've heard that it isn't too difficult obtaining a licence for medicinal marijuana. That's just what I've heard.

 

[pgt1400]

pro's...con's...and lots of propaganda and opinions. Who cares...I enjoy it! LOL

 

[Fangz]

I don't trust cops to prioritize anything. A quick easy arrest is one that they'll take more often than not and that would scare me if I still smoked. 😱

 

[Redmage]

Let's talk about peer reviewed articles.

A peer reviewed article, thesis or piece of research is information written by a credible and reliable "expert" who has tested arguments for themselves to determine whether they can find weak arguments, unfounded assumptions, and over generalsations from small samples (testing on two people, or testing on monkeys for fuck sake) to support their claims.

Say what? Judging from this, you don't have a clue what peer reviewed articles are.

"Peer review" has nothing to do with sample size. It means that the paper was submitted to a journal and was reviewed, before publication, by a panel of the researcher's "peers" - that is, people who work in the same field and have the same expertise that he does. They check for methodological errors and verify that he is presenting enough evidence to support his conclusions.

Where you got your ideas about this, I can't guess, but they're wrong.

Saying shit like "cheeseburgers will do more harm" is a false comparsion, marijuana and cheeseburgers and milk and red meat are completely unrelated so you'd best find some better arguments.

Not really. Your argument is that pot causes harm. So it's entirely appropriate to look at other things that cause harm and ask questions: Is marijuana actually more harmful than this other thing? If not, then why do you care about marijuana more than this other thing?

Harm is harm, regardless of how the causes are related.

Ok, so I'll write this in bold, so that the OP can actually get something out of this thread, THC stores into the fat of tissue which interferes with the brain's chemical processes, and since the brain is composed of a lot of fatty tissue, you guys can put two and two together, yeh? Oh, yeah, hence why I use the word "irritation".

OK, so you've explained the basis of your mistaken use of the term. It's still mistaken. Moving into a particular tissue does not, by itself, "irritate" that tissue.

THC does move preferentially into fatty tissues. However that has nothing to do with its effects on brain function. It simply affects how long it remains in the body. The effects on the brain are exerted through endogenous cannabinoid receptors.

A receptor is a site either on or inside a cell - usually a protein or group of proteins - that "fits" certain chemicals like a lock fits a key. When the right chemical comes along to fit the lock, it causes certain changes in the cell. Most medications act at cell receptors. We know of two different types of cannabinoid receptors so far, called CB1 and CB2. Both respond to a chemical that's naturally produced in the body called anandamide, but it happens that THC also fits their "locks."

None of this has anything to do with fatty tissues.

Look, your ideas on this are based on false beliefs and bad information. You are making claims about matters of fact - such as what "peer review" really means and how THC affects the brain - that are simply wrong. This is an area in which you think you know a lot more than you really do. That's not a crime - it happens. But a man's got to know when he's going on about stuff he doesn't really understand. It doesn't help get good information out there, if that's what you want to do.

And finally, here's a little story for you fine people...when my sister was heavily smoking (she's a very heavy tobacco and weed smoker), my concerned father went to our family GP on his own to gather some information. Now, because my father is a non-smoker (both tobacco and marijuana), the family GP had no reason to lie, or to beat around the bush or to just make up shit, because I don't believe family GPs are paid to make up shit, especially a trustworthy family doctor of 30 years, and this is what he told my father. He said that marijuana smoke is 50 times more carsinogenic than tobacco smoke.

I'm sorry, but he's wrong.

Harm Reduction Journal, 18 October 2005 Quoting:
"Tobacco has dramatic negative consequences for those who smoke it. In addition to its high addiction potential, tobacco is causally associated with over 400,000 deaths yearly in the United States, and has a significant negative effect on health in general. More specifically, over 140,000 lung-related deaths in 2001 were attributed to tobacco smoke. Comparable consequences would naturally be expected from cannabis smoking since the burning of plant material in the form of cigarettes generates a large variety of compounds that possess numerous biological activities.

"While cannabis smoke has been implicated in respiratory dysfunction, including the conversion of respiratory cells to what appears to be a pre-cancerous state, it has not been causally linked with tobacco related cancers such as lung, colon or rectal cancers. Recently, Hashibe et al carried out an epidemiological analysis of marijuana smoking and cancer. A connection between marijuana smoking and lung or colorectal cancer was not observed. These conclusions are reinforced by the recent work of Tashkin and coworkers who were unable to demonstrate a cannabis smoke and lung cancer link, despite clearly demonstrating cannabis smoke-induced cellular damage."

Translation: marijuana smoke isn't good for you, but it's actually less carcinogenic than tobacco.

But you know what, man? That's a good question that I think about constantly. If alcohol is legal, why shouldn't marijauna be? You don't see a bunch of stoners brawling out the front of a nightspot.

I don't know the sure answer, but I'm certain there'd be obvious reasons.

If the reasons are really obvious, don't you think you'd see them? Go back and look at the history of marijuana laws. You'll find that religious fundamentalism and racism were the main forces behind them.

What kind of jobs are reliant on marijuana remaining illegal? Well...accept for the drug dealer's job of course...

Law enforcement (especially DEA, Customs, and FBI), prison workers, parole and probation officers, prosecuting attorneys...

Basically, every person whose work revolves around catching drug users and drug dealers, putting them in prison, and keeping them there. If marijuana were legal then these people would have far less to do, and we wouldn't need to pay as many to do it.

I don't know too much about American History but I know about prohibition. I can imagine how such a precedent would lead to ongoing problems in the 'war on drugs'.

Prohibition wasn't so much a precedent as a failed lesson. It taught us that it's not possible to effectively ban something if there's a strong demand for it. If people want it, someone will find a way to give it to them. Unfortunately we refuse to learn from that lesson and insist on a War on Some Drugs.