Marijuana is harmless. Right?

[EHocking]

Prescribed? Or does that mean something different in the USA?

In the UK, in this context, it would be something you had a prescription for from your doctor.

Same as here in Australia (where psion10 resides too). We tend to speak the Queen’s English with only the slightest of weird accents.

I think, though, that in both countries you can be prescribed a proscribed drug?

 

[EHocking]

Meth is the big worry but cops are quite happy to test for THC as well.

in actuality they test for both (and more) at the same time with the the same swab and follow up swab at the roadside.

Both are quite inaccurate, but when police are given conviction quotas, they won’t care about the false positives.

Oh, and the swabs only detect THC, for instance, in saliva. The amount in your blood stream is not detectable with these things.
If you swallow THC in tablet for you may well be high but only a blood test would show it. These swabs would fail to detect any THC.

So unlike an RBT, which can directly indicate physical impairment due to alcohol in your system, these roadside tests can only indicate proximity or exposure, including secondhand exposure, to these drugs.

 

[zooterkin]

Same as here in Australia (where psion10 resides too). We tend to speak the Queen’s English with only the slightest of weird accents.

I think, though, that in both countries you can be prescribed a proscribed drug?

If it were prescribed, it would not be illicit, and if he meant proscribed, that would be tautological in conjunction with illicit.

 

[EHocking]

If it were prescribed, it would not be illicit, and if he meant proscribed, that would be tautological in conjunction with illicit.

Marijuana is illicit in most states here, but can be acquired through prescription now.

But the initial poster spelled it incorrectly.

 

[zooterkin]

Marijuana is illicit in most states here, but can be acquired through prescription now.

Which would make it licit, surely?

 

[psionl0]

If it were prescribed, it would not be illicit, and if he meant proscribed, that would be tautological in conjunction with illicit.

Maybe the source I consulted had a typo.

Unless you are trying to argue that random drug tests aren't done, this is a pointless argument about semantics.

 

[EHocking]

Which would make it licit, surely?

Only if it is prescribed.
Without that it is proscribed.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Well I do have an issue with the myth that marijuana is harmless. Here in Oklahoma they passed a new medical marijuana law that is extremely lenient. In fact it is so easy to get a medical card that pretty much anyone can get one for pretty much any reason at all. Upset stomach? No problem here is your card. Anxiety? Sure! Pot fixes that too! Back ache? Come right in and get your new drug!

Except it is all BS and everyone knows it! Yes there are one or two actual real purposes for medical marijuana, but here they actually let anyone get a card for anything! Just find a doctor willing to give a prescription. (even if he is only online) Pay your 100 bucks. Done!

However, the real world exists, and people are getting seriously sick! In fact my boss fell for these sorts of myths, and sure enough, two weeks ago it caused her to have a psychotic episode! It took a week cold turkey at a real lock down medical facility for her to come back to reality. Now she is fine, mostly, but it was scary, not only for her, but everyone who saw it happen too.

Marijuana is a drug. And ALL drugs need treated with respect! Even aspirin! And even Marijuana.

 

[Chanakya]

Well I do have an issue with the myth that marijuana is harmless. Here in Oklahoma they passed a new medical marijuana law that is extremely lenient. In fact it is so easy to get a medical card that pretty much anyone can get one for pretty much any reason at all. Upset stomach? No problem here is your card. Anxiety? Sure! Pot fixes that too! Back ache? Come right in and get your new drug!

Except it is all BS and everyone knows it! Yes there are one or two actual real purposes for medical marijuana, but here they actually let anyone get a card for anything! Just find a doctor willing to give a prescription. (even if he is only online) Pay your 100 bucks. Done!

However, the real world exists, and people are getting seriously sick! In fact my boss fell for these sorts of myths, and sure enough, two weeks ago it caused her to have a psychotic episode! It took a week cold turkey at a real lock down medical facility for her to come back to reality. Now she is fine, mostly, but it was scary, not only for her, but everyone who saw it happen too.

Marijuana is a drug. And ALL drugs need treated with respect! Even aspirin! And even Marijuana.

Not to forget alcohol. And even coffee.

 

[steenkh]

I have just found this thread, and I wondered about all of these posts about comparison between marihuana and alcohol that seem to say that because alcohol is a lot worse than alcohol, then marihuana should be legal.

I simply cannot understand this reasoning, because it is not a question of either/or, but both will be in society simultaneously. Alcoholics will not shift their habits to marihuana, and lots of people will use both.

Alcohol should have been banned from the start, but that is much too late, and there is no reason why society should suffer even more by adding extra substances that will be abused. I am particularly worried about how passive smoking of marihuana can lead to reduced reaction speed when driving, and possible fines.

I am not concerned about people ruining their own health, but the effect it has on me as a non-user directly, and indirectly.

 

[Chanakya]

I have just found this thread, and I wondered about all of these posts about comparison between marihuana and alcohol that seem to say that because alcohol is a lot worse than alcohol, then marihuana should be legal.

I simply cannot understand this reasoning, because it is not a question of either/or, but both will be in society simultaneously. Alcoholics will not shift their habits to marihuana, and lots of people will use both.

Alcohol should have been banned from the start, but that is much too late, and there is no reason why society should suffer even more by adding extra substances that will be abused. I am particularly worried about how passive smoking of marihuana can lead to reduced reaction speed when driving, and possible fines.

I am not concerned about people ruining their own health, but the effect it has on me as a non-user directly, and indirectly.

There are three points to this thread. At least, that was my intention, but of course, it's not "my" thread, and may end up with less, or more, or different points than those three I had in mind, which are:

First, to establish how harmful, or otherwise, and how addictive, or otherwise, pot is, stand-alone, basis facts not perception.

Second, how the above figures vis-a-vis, one the one hand things like alcohol, that we (or at least I) believe are more harmful and addictive, and yet we use them, most of us, and use them freely; and on the other things like heroin, crack, that we believe, or at least I believe, are way more harmful and addictive. Again basis facts, not perception.

And finally, although the OP doesn't mention it, policy about weed, vis-a-vis these other things. Personal policy, as well as societal policy and laws.

----

IF we do find out that pot is less harmful and addictive than alcohol, but still harmful, then what? We're not there yet, far from it, from having established that, so far: but once we do, we can argue for a number of things. Your POV is one of them, sure. I myself don't agree, not one bit, but I'd rather not go there -- although I'm tempted to, since holding forth on policy is fun! (and I did give in to that temptation in the post preceding yours, mea culpa) -- until we've satisfied ourselves about the facts.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Once again I'd like to point out that in The Netherlands, where marijuana has been legal to use for many decades this information IS available.
And as it turns out, the impact is quite negligible.
Drug use here is not higher than in the US, its effect on traffic accidents is barely noticeable and there doesn't seem to be any increase in deaths trough lung cancer that are attributable to the drug.

We do have to spend a lot less police time dealing with weed smokers.

Now I'm not saying it's completely harmless, no drugs are, but as drugs go it's on the extremely mild side. Those who are addicted to a destructive level tend to have serious underlying problems which tend to lead to some form of substance abuse anyway.

 

[psionl0]

Alcohol should have been banned from the start, but that is much too late, and there is no reason why society should suffer even more by adding extra substances that will be abused.

"Adding"?

Making marijuana illegal hasn't stopped its use any more than it did for alcohol and making it legal is unlikely to cause its use to increase. That has been the experience where marijuana was decriminalzed/legalized.

 

[psionl0]

In fact my boss fell for these sorts of myths, and sure enough, two weeks ago it caused her to have a psychotic episode!

You need more than a sample size of 1 to make an argument like this.

 

[Pixel42]

I'd probably try it if it was legalised, just to find out what the fuss was about. The only reason I haven't tried it is because I have no idea how to get hold of some, and no great desire to find out.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

You need more than a sample size of 1 to make an argument like this.

Its not an argument, its an example.

 

[Ron Obvious]

Its not an argument, its an example.

The cause and effect is also not clear-cut. People with mental health issues have been known to seek out pot, which often calms them down and may even prevent psychotic episodes.

I can't recall pot ever causing a psychotic episodes myself. It's not LSD or Meth.

 

[psionl0]

Its not an argument, its an example.

I know several people who have been regular cannabis users for years (some even decades). None suffered any ill effects from their habit, most had successful careers and all have hobbies and interests outside of their cannabis use.

These examples prove about as much as yours.

 

[Modified]

I know several people who have been regular cannabis users for years (some even decades). None suffered any ill effects from their habit, most had successful careers and all have hobbies and interests outside of their cannabis use.

These examples prove about as much as yours.

A kid in my high school class used to say "Every year they tell me you can't smoke pot and get straight As, and every year I prove them wrong." He's now a genetic research scientist with a Ph.D. in medicine.

 

[Chanakya]

Once again I'd like to point out that in The Netherlands, where marijuana has been legal to use for many decades this information IS available.
And as it turns out, the impact is quite negligible.
Drug use here is not higher than in the US, its effect on traffic accidents is barely noticeable and there doesn't seem to be any increase in deaths trough lung cancer that are attributable to the drug.

We do have to spend a lot less police time dealing with weed smokers.

Now I'm not saying it's completely harmless, no drugs are, but as drugs go it's on the extremely mild side. Those who are addicted to a destructive level tend to have serious underlying problems which tend to lead to some form of substance abuse anyway.

Yep, The Netherlands seems to have been "tolerating" weed use since way back, 4+ decades, right since the seventies. Although -- and I had to look this up -- they've never actually legalized the stuff, have they? They seem to have only decriminalized it, but beyond that, also actually -- and that word keeps cropping up when you check out their policy -- "tolerated" it. Lots of contradictions in how their policy is framed, apparently. But they're in the process of clearing up some of those contradictions, it seems, for instance by working towards making manufacture permissible at long last. And it's cool that they've de facto made the stuff (fairly) freely available over there since so very long.


(Some links: 1, 2, 3.)

Thanks for bringing this up.

I haven't really looked, at this time, but I'm sure good long-term data from The Netherlands ought to be available, about (different facets and effects of) long-term weed use. That should be interesting to check out.