• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Marijuana Harmless?

Stellafane said:
Note that the posts are identical, except that the second one ends in three periods instead of one. (This forum doesn't allow word-for-word identical posts, as I discovered.) The reason I did this was for humorous effect -- upon seeing the second post, the reader is supposed to experience a sensation of "flashback." Get it?

I guess this just proves that marijuana isn't harmless. Because it either destroys one's ability to get a simple joke -- or it deludes one into believing that an obscure and unfunny little stunt is actually witty and humorous!
Click to expand...

Haha! Okay, I get what you're saying now.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
Is all pot created equal?
Click to expand...

No drug is uniform.

That "skunk" stuff has 300 mg of THC, as opposed to 10 mg of THC. That's over THIRTY TIMES the amount of THC per joint.

There's a key difference between smoking 20 mg of THC per week (2 joints a week), and 600 mg (2 joints a week). And then, if the kids then smoke more often than even that, that's even more compounded; if there's a much higher "high", would the kids be more likely to smoke even more per week? I think that that's an interesting question.

There's a kid that I met here in Corpus that was a drug user (I suggested for him to go to a rehab center; he actually eventually took my advice, he claims). He would *snort* weed, but it wasn't weed; it was 1/2 weed, 1/2 cocaine (crack? I forget).

Not nice stuff, but not necessarily normal marijuana either.
 
Wish I could remember where, um, but there was a refutation to the Guardian article: It showed graphs for potency over the years--there were fluctuations, but nothing like an order-of-magnitude increase in potency.

In any case, more THC means you can smoke less. Smoking and its effects on the lungs, etc., is probably the least disputed issue about marijuana smoking--despite that study a while back* that found no increase in lung or other cancers in pot smokers. Reassuring study, but dependable?

The whole increase-in-potency thing is a dumb scare tactic: You can't overdose on weed, and smoking has such a rapid onset of effect that you can control the dosage by feel--unlike marinol, for example.

Willie Nelson: Marijuana is the best anti-depressant. (I'll listen to any man who can write a song like "Crazy".)

*Source? Er...
 
calebprime said:
Wish I could remember where, um, but there was a refutation to the Guardian article: It showed graphs for potency over the years--there were fluctuations, but nothing like an order-of-magnitude increase in potency.

In any case, more THC means you can smoke less. Smoking and its effects on the lungs, etc., is probably the least disputed issue about marijuana smoking--despite that study a while back* that found no increase in lung or other cancers in pot smokers. Reassuring study, but dependable?

The whole increase-in-potency thing is a dumb scare tactic: You can't overdose on weed, and smoking has such a rapid onset of effect that you can control the dosage by feel--unlike marinol, for example.

Willie Nelson: Marijuana is the best anti-depressant. (I'll listen to any man who can write a song like "Crazy".)

*Source? Er...
Click to expand...

Really!? Have you a source for this claim?
 
Have a look at the DEA page, what a collection of fallacies and scare tactics:

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/marijuana.html

like, "exposing the myth of smoked medical marijuana: Smoking marijuana weakens the immune system and raises the risk of lung infections"

Since when medical marijuana has to be smoked? It can be taken in so many different ways! It´s so blatantly obvious that we cannot trust what the DEA has to say about drugs because of their dependancy on anti-drug laws. That´s right, the DEA has become DEPENDANT on these unfair anti-drug laws. It developed a dependency with anti-alcohol drugs, and since "Treatment for drug dependence ... often includes administration of another drug, especially for substances that can be dangerous when abruptly discontinued", they changed to anti-marijuana prohibition to fulfill THEIR NEEDS. The symptoms of their "addiction" are the usual: Desensitization, rigid interpersonal behavior, denial...

When are people going to stop these liars to make business out of an artificially created "problem"? The biggest problem is Illegalisation itself. Even with hard drugs. Legal Morphine addicts can lead perfectly normal lives, while heroin addicts have to suffer from infections, criminalisation and all these adverse effects due to ILLEGALISATION, not caused by the drug but by the anti-drug laws!
 
Last edited:
Abooga said:
Have a look at the DEA page, what a collection of fallacies and scare tactics:

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/marijuana.html

like, "exposing the myth of smoked medical marijuana: Smoking marijuana weakens the immune system and raises the risk of lung infections"

Since when medical marijuana has to be smoked? It can be taken in so many different ways! It´s so blatantly obvious that we cannot trust what the DEA has to say about drugs because of their dependancy on anti-drug laws. That´s right, the DEA has become DEPENDANT on these unfair anti-drug laws. It developed a dependency with anti-alcohol drugs, and since "Treatment for drug dependence ... often includes administration of another drug, especially for substances that can be dangerous when abruptly discontinued", they changed to anti-marijuana prohibition to fulfill THEIR NEEDS. The symptoms of their "addiction" are the usual: Desensitization, rigid interpersonal behavior, denial...

When are people going to stop these liars to make business out of an artificially created "problem"? The biggest problem is Illegalisation itself. Even with hard drugs. Legal Morphine addicts can lead perfectly normal lives, while heroin addicts have to suffer from infections, criminalisation and all these adverse effects due to ILLEGALISATION, not caused by the drug but by the anti-drug laws!
Click to expand...

From the sound of it, you would like the whole of the site I linked to above. It's based in the UK rather than the US, but you will find lots of well researched arguments for the legalisation of drugs there.
 
wolfgirl said:
Well, here's a nifty little news article that just came out, claiming that not only does marijuana not cause lung cancer, it can actually help treat it:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070422/NATIONWORLD/704220382/1083/LIVING01
Click to expand...

One important thing to notice is the method of administering it. It doesn't say how the mice were dosed, but I seriously doubt they were smoking it, and the cell cultures were given just THC and not marijuana. Sucking smoke into your lungs is not good for them, no matter what you are smoking. Marijuana may have positive effects as well, but if any cures do come out of it, smoking will certainly not be the way to administer them.

skeptigirl said:
Come on, Cuddles, this is bunk*.

First off, caffeine is a stimulant. Period. There is no maybe.

It's a mild stimulant and affects some more than others so it isn't going to keep someone awake for days on end. And tolerance develops.

It is mildly addicting in that people have headaches and other known withdrawal symptoms. But people who quit do not often relapse and certainly don't have the kind of cravings one has for cigarettes and other truly addicting drugs.


*Note: I'm posting this before reading the other replies so I imagine there are other people who have already pointed this out.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid it's not bunk. Caffeine is a mild stimulant, but that does not change the fact that it is very addictive and most people are in denial about this. It has a much shorter addiction period than many drugs, so you feel withdrawal after a night's sleep, but if you quit for a week or so you will no longer feel anything, but it is still addictive. The issue is not cut and dried either way, but you certainly cannot claim that the addictive properties of caffeine are just bunk.

CAFFEINE in fizzy drinks is more likely to cause addiction than improve the taste of the products
Click to expand...
Earlier research done by Griffiths and his colleagues found evidence of withdrawal symptoms in children denied their usual supply of caffeinated soft drinks.
Click to expand...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16722521.100


In a study published last October (Psychopharmacology, vol 176, p 1), neuroscientist Roland Griffiths of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, argued that caffeine withdrawal was serious enough to be added to the next edition of the psychiatrist's bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. He reviewed all the literature on caffeine withdrawal and uncovered a dismal litany of symptoms, from headaches, fatigue and depression to vomiting and muscle pain. He also concluded that the benefits of caffeine are an illusion: coffee merely reverses the withdrawal symptoms.
Click to expand...
studies showing caffeine's positive effects on altertness and mental performance are flawed because the volunteers are habitual caffeine users whose performance on caffeine is being compared with their performance without it. Caffeine doesn't make anyone perform better, he argues: it merely restores them to a normal level.
Click to expand...
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18725181.700-coffee-the-demon-drink.html
 
Jeff Corey said:
But if were legal, the problem is that it it is so easy to grow your own. A closet, a rooftop, in your backyard, wherever. Get a few big plump seeds somewhere and you are in business.
The difference between the legality of brewing your own beer or wine for your own consumption is that pot is so easy to grow, And you can sex the plants and get sansemillia. It ain't called weed for nothin.
So they could not tax home grown.
Click to expand...

People can grow their own now... the difference is that one way would be legal (purchase a pack)... the other way would still be a felony which will land you in prision. I think the differences would migrate people toward the legal way as the consequences are very steep for illegal use.

By the way, my plan counts on a huge influx of non-residents who want to also be able to legally smoke pot.

(I model this whole process after the casino industry. It's highly regulated, highly profitable, and states which don't have them have all their residents flocking to neighboring states to spend their money.)
 
Two questions,

Why would it have to be forbidden to grow your own (weed)?
(Only to protect the sales of some companies?)

and

Is it dangerous to drive after smoking (weed)?
(References please. In my experience drinking does affect driving a lot, while only a very high dose of weed would impair driving. Low doses usually make you more cautious)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom