The Marijuana Thread

[bigred]

Just because something is bad doesn't mean it should be illegal.

No, but to in that way equate them, ie say all things that are "bad" are the same, doesn't make sense either. Tobacco is tobacco, alcohol is alchol, pot is pot. All have their own unique pros and cons (some more debatable than others)...there are many things to consider as to each's "badness" - health concerns, physical/mental/emotional impacts both during use and short-term vs long-term effects aftewards, how "easy" is it to abuse, etc etc etc.

The idea that it should be legalized because "it's bad and there are other bad things that are legal" (or let's get down to the real reason for many: "because I like it and I want to") doesn't exactly cut it.

Put simply: I should have the right to screw up my own life.

This isn't about you and your life; it's about the welfare of society in general. That's what gov't (at least in theory) is all about.

PS and oh btw mixed feelings on the whole thing, but I don't get why not legalizing pot is so unfathomable. It seriously impairs the brain (and by extension motor skills, reaction times etc) and does or can do serious damage to short-term memory, and often contributes to a lazy/poor attitude in general (and pls note I'm talking question of degrees there, since someone is bound to go "oh you think anyone who smokes pot is a lazy bum!" blah etc). And unlike alcohol, it is almost never done in moderation, people do not "smoke it for the taste," and with rare exception (ie providing relief to cancer patients) it cannot provide a health benefit - ie has no other use other than to catch a buzz.

But even all that aside, I agree with those arguing about how bad alcohol is for our society, ie because of all the drunk driving casualities, families it wrecks, etc and so on. We SHOULD get rid of it. But Prohibition proved we cannot. It was just too much an integral part of our country before we even WERE a country. In other words, even though it shouldn't, alcohol gets a free pass. But 2 wrongs don't make a right and anyone using this as justification to legalize pot is....well, high.

 

[bigred]

Re: Wildcat's post, we have a copy of Reefer Madness. We find it amusing. What's sad is how many folks think it represents anything close to reality.

Where on Earth did you get the idea that "many folks" think it represents anything close to reality?

Since when it is the business of the government to control what I do within the proximity of my own home?

? Since when do people only smoke pot within the proximity of their own home??

Alcohol, by any reasonable definition, is a drug.

"by any reasonable definition" is more than a little subjective, so pls provide your defintion of "drug." Honestly. There are many and widely varying definitions of it.

A mind-altering drug that can have lethal withdrawal symptoms. In fact, it is the only recreational drug that can kill you via withdrawal.

I don't necessarily disblieve you but...evidence/link?

also, one thing to think about in debunking this myth:

A person who is willing to smoke marijuana is already likely to try drugs.

Sorry, not a myth. Having been there and been around a LOT of people who were, yes it was overwhelmingly a "gateway" drug - once pot become ordinary, most were looking to try something else. Of course that doesn't mean everyone who got high turned into a crackhead (or whatever). It isn't always or automatically a "gateway."

If the "gateway" theory is in any way sound, then what was the gateway for the initial choice to use marijuana?

Youth - ie stupidity. When you're young and transforming into adulthood, you think doing "adult things" (drinking, smoking, getting high) is a way to further that along and prove your adulthood. Youth is the gateway to trying a lot of things that would be better off not tried. As for pot, it's known to be a much safer/easier way to try out the whole "drug thing" than most other drugs.

 

[luchog]

Sure, but that misses my point: when it's absorbed through digestion, it has to pass through the liver first, before it will reach the nervous system, and that attenuates its effectiveness considerably.

Nope, completely and totally and thorougly wrong. On two entirely different levels. First, both ingestion methods allow the substances to entire the bloodstream, whereby it is carried throughout the body. In both cases it goes through the neurological system prior to being metabolized in the liver. The primary difference between the oral and inhalation methods is that the oral absorption is far slower. Second, the liver doesn't produce psycho-active substances, the liver is involved in breaking the THC down into an interim active metabolite, followed by inactive metabolites which are then filtered and excreted.

Because of the slower release of the orally ingested form, larger doses are needed to achieve the same effect because of metabolism of the active TCH. And since metabolism varies over the course of the day, it's much more difficult to maintain a consistent dose that balances the desirable effects with the undesirable euphoria. And that is not simply theory, that is the results of clinical and field trials with both crude cannabis in inhaled and ingested form, compared with ingested dronabinol.

And an inhaler would provide the same rapid onset advantages.

Which is what I recommended, hence the term "nebulizer". The only difference between a home nebulizer and personally grown plants vs. a prescribed nebulizer created by a drug manufacturer is that the latter will cost 2-10 times as much.

The only downside to smoking is the small amount of potentially toxic by-products, which are typically minimal compared to tobacco; and can be reduce to insignificant levels by using a water-based filtration system.

Again, easy to accomplish with an inhaler. Make dosages of each puff of inhaler similar to what you'd get from a single drag of a joint, if you want. But now you KNOW what the dosage is. Yes, with smoked pot you can administer correct dosages easily enough, but you missed the point that you cannot TRACK that dosage, which deprives you of a diagnostic tool.

No it doesn't, because dosage is not a reliable diagnostic tool. Dosage is too individualized and too variable. Symptomatic intensity and progression is the most commonly used diagnostic tool; combined with various testing regimes.

 

[luchog]

I find this very interesting if true. Perhaps the increase from people like myself, who would ony do it were it legal and infrequently, would be more than offset by the "potheads" who only got into it because it was something rebellious, and are thus no longer really rebelling.

Just a WAG on my part. I'll try Googling it, but do you have any links?

I haven't seen the results published online anywhere, this was from books I read a number of years ago. The post-spike difference was only a couple of percentage points lower.

I did find one more recent study that claimed to show a similarly small increase; but was seriously flawed, as it didn't differentiate between "drug-tourists" and residents, and it also didn't differentiate between one-time use and regular use.

 

[luchog]

What does this all mean? If you show me someone that uses marijuana, it is more likely than not that he does not use other illicit drugs. But, it is far more likely that he does use other illicit drugs when compared to someone who does not use marijuana.

I still don't trust that. How are they definiing "other" illicit drugs? Do they include only hard drugs like heroin, cocaine, and methamphetaime? Or does it also include other soft drugs like hallucinogens (mushrooms, LSD, Mescaline, etc)? If they haven't differentiated between the hard and soft drugs then the data does not necessarily support your conclusion. I'm more than willing to beleive that a substantial number of cannabis users also use other soft drugs; but my experiences and studies show a far smaller link between cannabis and hard drugs. In some cases where the two are used concurrently, usage pattern is actually reversed -- starting with the hard drugs (mostly meth and cocaine), and then using cannabis to mitigate the side/after effects.

 

[luchog]

Sorry - "It helps the tourist economy" is a boat that don't float.

Actually, Vancouver BC has seen a moderate influx of American "drug tourists" since decriminalizing cannabis use. Not to the same extent as European drug tourists in the Netherlands, but....

 

[luchog]

Allow me to blow your mind: teachers don't get drug-tested. We get FBI background checks and fingerprinted, but no whiz-quiz.

I cannot tell you how shocked I was. I even offered to test and put it on file, just cuz I thought that info would benefit all of us. I was told not to be silly.

I have very few aquaintance who don't use cannabis at least occasionally. The vast majority of those I know in the IT industry do, as do the teachers I know; and even one of the lawyers I'm familiar with. My doctor used to use occasionally, and supply to his chemo patients who couldn't get a license.

 

[skeptifem]

i hate stoners, but they really shouldnt get arrested for smoking pot. its not like tons of people are stealing/mugging people to get money for their pot habit, like people do for heroin or meth. I think keeping the cashflow inside of the us is a good idea too, the people that major drug money goes to in other countries are not known for their morals.

 

[luchog]

The biggest benefit to legalization that I can see is that we wouldn't be spending taxpayer money busting pot smokers, with all the attendant costs of the criminal justice system. How much is that? I don't know; I'm sure there are figures out there somewhere.

I don't have the figures handy, but the DEA is a multi-billion-dollar industry; and the largest percentage of it's budget is spent on cannabis prohibition enforcement.

The biggest benefit to keeping it illegal that I can see is that we don't put society's stamp of approval on it, and we have fewer stoners than we would otherwise have, and more productive taxpayers. In an increasingly competetive economic world, does it benefit us to have more stoners? How much is the value of that? I don't know, and I don't believe it's knowable.

Legal approval is pretty much irrelevant for cannabis use. It's too easy to get, and too cheap, and too few employers will do drug testing. Only government/military/high-risk jobs typically test as a rule; most private employers have dropped drug testing. The number of people who want to use drugs but don't simply because of it's illegality is insignificantly small.

Also, you're being disingenuous in a manner quite worthy of you. There is a huge difference between "cannabis user" and "stoner". Just like there is a huge difference between "occasional/social drinker" and "alcoholic". You seem to assume that any use of cannabis will result in non-functional "stoners". The IT industry alone is proof that that is not the case. The vast majority of cannabis users are just as functional as tobacco users; and include professionals. The number of people in these jobs who are cannabis users will not change appreciably, since they already make the choice not to use cannabis in order to retain and perform their job. These jobs are not going to stop testing for cannabis, just like they have not stopped testing for legal substances such as alcohol.

Incidentally, the vast majority of on-the-job accidents are related to alcohol use, not cannabis use, because cannabis use does not impair judgement or physical reaction to the degree that alcohol does (note, i didn't not say it doesn't impair at all, which it does).

It will also not affect driving, since driving under the influence of alcohol is already illegal, and in most jurisdictions subject to harsh penalties; yet people still do it regularly. They are not the majority of drinkers, they are a very very small minority. Likewise those driving impaired by cannabis are a very very small minority of cannabis users.

Like the vast majority of alcohol users, the vast majority of cannabis users are responsible people who know their limits and do keep their use to appropriate times and levels. The biggest problem with legalization is simply this sort of irrational demonization of a substance and population that has no factual basis.

 

[luchog]

"by any reasonable definition" is more than a little subjective, so pls provide your defintion of "drug." Honestly. There are many and widely varying definitions of it.

By the legal and medical definition of "drug", as well as by the standard English definition of "drug", alcohol qualifies as a drug. That reasonable enough for you?

Sorry, not a myth. Having been there and been around a LOT of people who were, yes it was overwhelmingly a "gateway" drug - once pot become ordinary, most were looking to try something else. Of course that doesn't mean everyone who got high turned into a crackhead (or whatever). It isn't always or automatically a "gateway."

Nope, that fails the definition of "gateway" drug. It was clearly the environment and personality, not the drug itself, that led to other drug use. They did not find what they were looking for with cannabis, so they moved on to harder drugs.

By definition if a drug isn't a "gateway" for an overwhelming majority of users, then it simply isn't a gateway. There is nothing about the drug itself that causes people to want to use harder drugs.

 

[steverino]

I think keeping the cashflow inside of the us is a good idea too, the people that major drug money goes to in other countries are not known for their morals.

True, but if marijuana is legal, is the buying and selling of it still considered "drug money?" More people would smoke more quantities of it. But it would be a lot less expensive. Also, for all we know at this point, the "marijuana packs of smokes" may be imported from south of the border, or Asia. So by legallizing marijuana, it is possible there would be less, not more, money circulating domestically.

 

[Dancing David]

David, antidepressants such as zoloft can be additive. They do help many people if taken properly. The problem comes when a person starts taking ever larger doses in order to feel better. Soon that person is hooked and can't function without that high dose. The body adapts and soon an even higher dose is needed.

Earlier response did not show, thank goodness.

Trantor are you getting your defintion of addiction where?

This is the most bogus staement I have read since Jedi Knight left the Forum. Are you a shill for the Church of Scientology or what?

So if someone who is insulin dependant takes a higher does of insulin they are an addict! Or if they need that higher dose to function?

I suggest you find some citations for your defintion of addiction because I am calling you out.

1. What is the defintion of addiction?

2. What substances and behaviors lead to addiction?

3. Anyone who needs a medication to fumction is an addict?

I resent your implication that I am an addict every time I need a higher dose of my medication or when I can't function without my medicine.

J'acusse, you are Woo-Woo of the Most Dangerous and Bogus sort. I challenge you to a duel, pistols or brickbats at dawn sirrah! Your father was a hamster and your mother smelled of elderberry!

 

[Dancing David]

I missed this and think it is spot on. I'm no expert on addiction but this makes perfect sense to me.

Is it far off base to think that in the case of tobacco users (or other drugs with physical withdrawal sypmtoms) that the withdrawal symptom partly triggers the behaviour?

Most certainly! One of the big triggers for heroin relapse is having the flu, which reminds ex-users of past withdrawl.

Physical addiction is a myth, all addictions are physical, there is nothing outside the body, psychology is ensconsed in the body.

Not a personal comment to you, again.

 

[strathmeyer]

No. Frankly, I'm not persuaded that either side of the argument is right; nor am I persuaded that either side is wrong.

The biggest benefit to keeping it illegal that I can see is that we don't put society's stamp of approval on it, and we have fewer stoners than we would otherwise have, and more productive taxpayers. In an increasingly competetive economic world, does it benefit us to have more stoners? How much is the value of that? I don't know, and I don't believe it's knowable.

It bothers me that you can't seem to tell the difference between right and wrong.

You think that society's stamp of approval isn't on pot? There aren't movies and television shows and magazines made about it, most high school and college kids don't do it?

You really think that marijuana's illegality prevents people from being stoners? You think lying to children about drug use prevents them from abusing drugs? You think that telling children that pot and heroine are both incredibly dangerous and addictive is morally acceptable? You think that when they find out hey were lied to about pot they will then become enligthened and magically know all there is to know about drugs? (Sidenote, the DARE drug program has been longitudinally studied and shown to cause drug abuse; why do they still use it?)

You're looking for the value in having more stoners. The value is in letting people do what they want. It scares me that you don't see any value in that.

You don't smoke pot (sake of argument). Is it alright for pot smokers to say that you should smoke pot just because they do? No, nor is it right for you to think it's alright to force your life on others.

 

[steverino]

You think lying to children about drug use prevents them from abusing drugs? You think that telling children that pot and heroine are both incredibly dangerous and addictive is morally acceptable?

So what you are saying is that, assuming you have young children yourself, you are putting your stamp of approval on their using illegal drugs?

 

[steverino]

(Sidenote, the DARE drug program has been longitudinally studied and shown to cause drug abuse; why do they still use it?)

http://www.drcnet.org/DARE/section6.html

"Many parents take issue with the emphasis on "self-esteem" in schools these days, and the notion that it can be readily "taught." Lillian Katz, Professor of Early Childhood Education at the University of Illinois, put it this way: "Self-esteem and self-confidence don't come from being told you are great. You get them by facing challenges and mastering them through hard work and persistence." (Readers Digest, April 1994, "Are We Demanding Enough of Our Kids?)"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, Strathmeyer, but can a kid stoned on pot face challanges and master them through hard work and persistance?

 

[slingblade]

You think lying to children about drug use prevents them from abusing drugs? You think that telling children that pot and heroine are both incredibly dangerous and addictive is morally acceptable?

So what you are saying is that, assuming you have young children yourself, you are putting your stamp of approval on their using illegal drugs?

I really, really hate it when people answer questions with a stupid question. Let me help you with this Steverino:


Do you think lying to children about drug use prevents them from using drugs?

Your Answer:




Do you think that telling children that pot and heroine are both incredibly dangerous and addictive is morally acceptable?

Your Answer:




I mean, you CAN see the horrendous fallacy in your previous response, can't you? How what you replied did not answer either question, was a non-sequitur, and even moved a goalpost or two?

Now, try again, please. I'd like to see real answers to these questions.

 

[slingblade]

OK, Strathmeyer, but can a kid stoned on pot face challanges and master them through hard work and persistance?

Yes.

 

[steverino]

I really, really hate it when people answer questions with a stupid question. Let me help you with this Steverino:


Do you think lying to children about drug use prevents them from using drugs?

My Answer (drumroll please)...No. But it is not lying to tell your kids that smoking marijuana, in some cases, has its hazards. I wish my parents had told us. And I feel that telling your kids that heroin is "incredibly harmful" is accurate. Call me old fashioned.

Do you think that telling children that pot and heroine are both incredibly dangerous and addictive is morally acceptable?

Your Answer:[/QUOTE]

One is more harmful than the other. Evidence of pot having certain dangers is credible. Evidence that heroin has certain dangers is incredible.

 

[slingblade]

Thank you! I sincerely appreciate the answers.

My Answer (drumroll please)...No. But it is not lying to tell your kids that smoking marijuana, in some cases, has its hazards. I wish my parents had told us. And I feel that telling your kids that heroin is "incredibly harmful" is accurate. Call me old fashioned.

No, not a bit. You answered well, and honestly, and I agree with your answer. Heroin is extremely dangerous, and saying so to your kids is not "old-fashioned."

Saying pot is an equivalent drug can be harmful, however, because it is not an equivalent drug to heroin. And if your kids ever take a toke and don't die, don't commit a crime, and even pass a test while high, they WILL NOT believe what you say about heroin.

Kids don't reason well. Brain maturity is needed for good reasoning, and only a few kids are able to manage it consistently. We know it's not logical to say "well, pot wasn't harmful to me like my dad said it would be, so he's probably wrong about (other drug), too."

Of course that's not smart thinking. But it's coming from a kid. So be honest with them. The sound reasons for not using pot are not really connected to what it will do to your body as much as to what it will do to your life. You give them the same reasons for not using pot that you give for other potentially harmful things that are legal, like drinking and smoking tobacco.

Too much alcohol can kill you in one sitting. Tobacco use often leads to some kind of long-term illness. And smoking pot can get you arrested, keep you from getting many jobs, and isn't really good for your health.

Heroin, however, can kill you the first time you use it. Show them "Trainspotting" to see the other ways heroin use can negatively affect your life. But don't tell them pot smoking is just like that. It isn't. And by the time you get around to telling them about drugs, it's possible they've already shared a joint with a friend.

If you lie about that, they will reason you must be lying about the rest.

Parenting well is hard.



Your Answer:

One is more harmful than the other. Evidence of pot having certain dangers is credible. Evidence that heroin has certain dangers is incredible.

I would only quibble with the last word. I would have used "overwhelming." In this case, "incredible" does not mean what you wanted it to.