You scream, I scream, we all scream for....pot?

This is so wacky it sounds like a phony story... but then again, it must be true because the media said so.

I don't consider it "wacky", but it is at least very uncommon.

Earth: polluted, dependant, conflicted, starving, obese, thirsting, flooding, and of course, addicted.

EDIT: I officialy deem the above sig worthy...

What a stupid/idiotic and sick thing to do in the presence of young kids. One consolation.. at least it wasn't anything really nasty.. such as methamphatemines, opiates, barbiturates, ecstacy etc. etc.

Modern marijuana is very, very potent. It's a myth that it's not a hard drug.

I disagree.

Have you done coke? Cocaine is considered a "hard" drug.

Yeah, coke is an addictive drug. So what happened to your argument about marijuana ? Maybe because it is baseless?

Here. Educate yourself.

Note: I do not condone the actions of this dealer. Legalize it though and that will all go away.

First off, I want you to know that I support the legalization of many drugs. I don't have a problem with the fact that people use marijuana (or cocaine), but I do have a problem with people who essentially worship a substance. Marijuana users tend to be the most guilty of worshipping their drug of choice.

There are "benefits" to cocaine too: you lose weight, and can concentrate for long periods of time. Marijuana is very much addictive, and I've known plenty of people who were nothing less than addicted to marijuana. I realize that there are people in this world, many of which seem to come from California, who think marijuana is a harmless panacea. I don't doubt that marijuana can be used for medicinal purposes, but as a belief, this couldn't be further from the truth. As far as I can tell, much of the hoopla around marijuana's positive attributes stems from the extreme denial of those use it. 99% of the time, Marijuana does more harm than good, from a health perspective.

Beyond this, marijuana grown today typically has 60 times the THC of marijuana from the 70's, some types more. It has been bred and cultured to be more potent, and I think it definitely qualifies as a hard drug.

Uh, no. Average THC content in US marijuana in 1975 was about 1%, 25 years ago in the early 80's it was about 3.5% and today the average is about 8%. So, no, not even close to 60 times what it was in the 70s, and only a little more than double what it was 25 years ago. See Monitoring Policy Project figures (example showing 1985-today). Apparently in the UK THC content was higher than the US during that time with averages of about 3.5-4% throughout the late 70s.

Basically all this means is that one joint today will get you as high as two joints in the UK in 1975. That's hardly a significant rise. Not that it matters, anyway, since it's just THC.

When I was fourteen we used to get our weed from the guy at the elementary school, or if we were really daring we would go to Flushing Queens and get it from even shadier people. Of course we never tried to get alcohol, because you needed an id for that. No, I'm not kidding.

I can make a chart, too. Please also refer to the "sources" section of your article. Note the groups that funded the research. Soft-scientists are whores for funding, and we need only look at what's coming from both sides of the global warming debate to verify that.

I know of people who have been mentally affected by longer-term marijuana usage. So I guess they're the exceptions, or that they decided to turn their lives around futilly. My bad. Listen, I don't have a problem with the fact that you enjoy smoking pot, but you will not be able to dig up medical evidence from multiple, reputable sources that suggests marijuana does not induce degrees of mental decay and other negative side-effects. As far as I'm concerned, when there's a lack of massively biased research, from one side or the other, I'm going to rely on conventional wisdom and personal experience. Both tell me that marijuana is not healthful. Nor is cocaine, for that matter.

As for the 60x number, it was a figure that a guy who's big into the cannibis clubs told me. I suppose he could have been inflating it for some purpose, but go figure. His actual words were "60 times stronger." giant says the THC content is 8x. All of this is hearsay, but even so it's equivalent to drinking eight beers instead of one beer -- big difference.

Well, I can see this will go nowhere since there isn't any study for anything that will not be biased.

All I can give you is my personal observations. I don't drink anymore. I saw friends get sick, die wrapped around a tree and when my nephew died from a drunk driver I decided enough was enough. I realized that I was in the grips of an illness. One that I believe is forced upon us with advertising and cultural influences. I've dabbled in a few drugs in my life. Never hard stuff, I hate needles and pills. Of them all, marijuana has been my recreational drug of choice. I have a few hits after work just like one has a beer or a cocktail. In my life I have never had an episode or reaction with it. Nor do I need to have it.

I have seen and know people who smoke too much too. Just as I have seen others drink too much or watch too much television (video games). I think that in many instances it is the person's addictive behavior that latches them onto something. Not alway chemical, but also cultural and psychological.

But you can't argue the real benefits of hemp.

More THC and stronger pot are not bad things. It means less plant matter is required to get the effect. Less mass is burned. Less substance is ingested. Its very obvious when you buy weak shit compared to strong. With the good stuff, you can make small joints and get a lasting effect, if desired. Weak shit tends to leave you longing.


Yes. My opinion on its "hardness" differs from that of the government.

Incidentally, does anyone know why there is such a marked and obvious bias and concentration in the 'anti-drug' advertising campaigns against the one particular (illegal) drug that has killed nobody directly, and has lesser psychological and physical dependencies than opiates, coke, alcohol, nicotine, speed, tranquillizers etc?

Why are the powers that be so paranoid about pot... to the extent that a related plant, industrial hemp (which doesn't get people stoned), perhaps the most versatile plant out there, is illegal for farmers to cultivate? (!!!) Considering that widespread hemp agriculture would help America's energy situation and reduce dependency on Middle East oil, as well as providing raw material numerous other products... it makes one wonder if the powers that be are:

(a) completely insane
(b) in the knowledge that its harder to sell a "hemp war" than an "oil/"terrorist" war"... or
(c) in the pockets of whatever lobbyists and corporations... etc etc...

This is yet another case of big intrusive government telling people not only what they can inhale, but also what they can and cannot grow on their farms.

When I was 16 in Chicago my friends and I had some pot and smoked up the ice cream man.

They have those trucks that play that crappy song drive around all the neighborhoods in the summer selling to all the kids. The driver as an older mexican guy who didn't speak any english and had silver teeth. But pot is good like that for transcending language boundaries. While we were in the middle of the joint- and we used to roll cheech and chongers back then cause it was shwag, a cop rolls past. So the ice cream man just starts handing us ice cream for free- like we'd paid for it. The cops rolled on. We said adios and went on to have a pretty good day eating push-up pops.

So I wonder if it's the same guy?

Or...

People only seem to discuss drugs in terms of addiction and potency, etc. There are opportunity costs involved with doing drugs-- what are you not doing as a result of your substance use? For pot users who smoke a great deal over time, opportunity costs start to build and often go unrecognized by the user, while those around them notice more and more. The drug also has a long term analgesic effect where heavy users lose interest in many things, including the pursuit of many of the opportunities that were within their grasp early on.

If you have enough time to get high, you have a lot of free time. Would that time be better spent helping someone out who really needs it, for instance, or is it best used to self-indulge?

We all choose... But it's folly to pretend that "lighter" drugs have less impact than "heavier." The impact quality may be different, but it's significant. Chance are, though, that if a person is unable to see the opportunity costs their use currently has, they're also unable to see and articulate the huge impact even light drugs have already had on who they are.

Rationalization is a strong defense mechanism.

Wow. Good one. I read, draw and generally do things that people do in their casual time. Same as what drinkers do. I'll say again, I have seen this behavior you indicate with people who can't control themselves. I have a friend who smokes constantly. He has planned and has been building a cafe for over a year. It still isn't finished. But I have seen many others who enjoy their activities and their friends just as much on a casual level. Like anything, if you lose control, you have to take stock of your self and your habit. Take this from a former drunk.

I'll buy that. Many lose themselves to things without realizing it, though.

I'm not opposed to substance use on a personal level. I just happen to work with people whose lives are derailed by it. Use, abuse, and addiction are different things for sure...

I'm glad we can agree to disagree. Marijuana messes me up -- I'll stick to alcohol and the occasional cigar. But if it works for you, I have no problem with that. If you can lead a productive life and use marijuana recreationally, then that's great. Not everyone can.

I agree that hemp is a great product, and that marijuana should be legalized in the US if only because hemp is a good material.

I like to smoke pot and ride my MTB to the top of mountains. Somethign about being stoned and climbing on a bike go hand and hand- not sure why. It makes the downhill a bit more scary tho. I've gotten my first responder and EMT certs as well all while smokin. Scored very well too- 2nd in my class.

I also like to do that and play video games/watch movies. Many people waste their lives doing that and never smoke pot.

It's not the drug- it's the habit. If a person let's their habit run their lives- then it doesn't matter if it's pot, alcohol or meth.


I am by all means successful- and know many multi-millionaires that rock a bong pretty regularly.

So... the whole pot makes you be a loser douchebag doesn't hold water out in NorCal.

ain't pot legal here anyways? I always forget.

And many, many don't. I know it's a total cliche, but the whole thing about how many business execs, lawyers, etc who smoke, if even just occasionally, is absolutely true.

Did you know that wildlife avoids marijuana plants? Kind of sad they have it figured out and we don't.

A source: "Animals tend to avoid this plant..."

Marijuana is the kind of drug that makes you believe your fine and everyone else is jacked, when it is really the other way around. This means that all you hear from marijuana users is how great the drug is, where a cigarette user might tell you never to start. Conclusion: Marijuana is safer. The truth is its it is less safe. Marijuana is more toxic than cigarettes. Also, think about how you smoke marijuana. You hold it in. That alone causes more damage to your body.

Source: "A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers. Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses....Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs' exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may be more harmful to the lungs than smoking tobacco."

(Removed, couldn't find a "source". But you probably know that you have no clue how much THC is in your bag of weed.)

"Don't bug me. I'll stop smoking weed after I get a lung transplant."

Sure, you can get someone else's lungs when yours stop working (if you are lucky), but your own lungs are the best you can get, and you only get one set of those in a lifetime. Not to mention you will be taking mountains of pills to get those lungs to work...

Source: "Marijuana abuse also has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke It also induces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form—levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs' exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may be more harmful to the lungs than smoking tobacco."

Now can we stop arguing about how dangerous it is and just agree that it is dangerous?

And sorry to burst bubbles, but there is significant and recent research suggesting that irreversible brain damage is one of the results of long term marijuana usage. IT IS FACT. THC affects the way your brain works. Period. You would not get high smoking marijuana if it didn't affect your brain.

A source: "Research findings for long-term marijuana abuse indicate some changes in the brain similar to those seen after long-term abuse of other major drugs. For example, cannabinoid (THC or synthetic forms of THC) withdrawal in chronically exposed animals leads to an increase in the activation of the stress-response system and changes in the activity of nerve cells containing dopamine."

Done ranting. Flame me now. But at least read my post before you flame.

Just to make my position more clear-


I agree. I don't have a problem with "social drinkers", so I really shouldn't have a problem with those who are "social marijuana smokers" (ignoring the illegality).

I just make the choice not to because it damages your body.

Source: See above.

And it irritates me when somebody tries to say that any drug doesn't affect your body, because it does. Even if it has a small effect, it has one.

EDIT: Added some sources. And if you don't trust the government site I used for almost every single one, look at the bottom of their page...

And I know a marijuana user with a 3.7 GPA. Does that mean it doesn't affect them? Does it make their decision right?

This totally contradicts my experience over the past 10 years not smoking at all while being surrounded by executives and managers, lawyers, software engineers, etc, etc who do smoke to various degrees. Maybe you are younger, maybe the people around you are less ambitious to begin with, but the stereotype you are expressing directly contracts my own experience.

This is just categorically false. You really need to do at least a minimal amount of research (or, more importantly, this) before spouting off about something you clearly have very limited knowledge of.

tank

if someone has a successful life, they are happy, and don't bother anyone- then what's the difference to you?

.... and as I asked in an earlier posting: Why all the moaning,handwringing and hysteria about marijuana on the part of the the powers-that-be, while other far more dangerous substances (both to the user and to society as a whole) are addressed with *relative* calm and rationality. I don't use it myself because it makes me feel horrible (and I don't smoke), but many of my friends do. To observe, it seems to make people introspective (and lazy as well), certainly not violent, criminally motivated or generally behave like complete assholes, which alcohol, speed, coke, pills etc. does far more effectively.

Why are the powers-that-be so PARANOID about a substance that causes people to enjoy music more, eat too much candy and talk about philosophical subjects? Very strange.. go figure.

Any clues out there?

Just ranting...feel free to ignore me...

You obviously do not know how to discuss in forums. CITE your allegations & "facts" please.

Sorry, I couldn't find anything stating that "wildlife avoids marijuana plants".

Why go on...troll?

Alls I know is that I am home from a so so day @ work- after hiking with my dog and I'm sipping on some Sonoma merlot, hitting on some Humboldt's finest and eating dark chocolate covered cali almonds... MMMMM.

Life sure seems good to me.

Not a well known fact...but I found a source.

"TOXICITY RATING: Low. Animals tend to avoid this plant, and toxic encounters are rarely fatal."

http://www.vet.purdue.edu/depts/addl/toxic/plant35.htm

EDIT: I thought it best to add sources for the rest of my post...so I did. And just so you know, I feel like I am proving to a little kid that AAAA batteries do exist. Sorry to post "without researching", but I was simply typing out of memory. I've researched this topic three times, twice for no good reason in spare time, and once for a health class.

Good job. Well, that settles it. We should continue outlawing a plant that is of low toxicity and rarely fatal...to animals. Staggering.

I did some researching too. Found this:

Wildlife the victim of growing Bay Area marijuana business


The illegal growing of marijuana is hurting wildlife, by the illegal growers. Whereas if it were legalized, there would be better controls and laws in place to prevent that.

Tankgunk, all you've done is demonstrate that you are really not doing anything resembling objective research. Going to the NIH website is not adequate research. Why not? For one, marijuana smoking clearly doesn't have a strong link (or, quite possibly, any link) to cancer the way tobacco smoking does. There have been a plethora of studies, particularly in the past 10 years, that found no correlation with cancer and, in some cases, anti-tumor effects. Where is this hugely significant body of information in your "research"? Why do you think the NIH page ignores it as well?

For example, why is it that the NIH page, and, by extension, you, cites a 1999 UCLA study suggesting a cancer link while completely ignoring a much larger and long-term 2006 UCLA study that found no link?

Perhaps more disturbing is that you have no excuse for not being aware of or ignoring all of this since I've already linked to wikipedia pages that cite a number of the relevant studies. Here you have actual citations that you can take to your local library to get your hands on the articles. Instead, you completely ignore them and just link to the NIH site.

It perfectly clear that you have your little opinion and will cherry-pick and ignore whatever you have to in order to support it.

Of course I agree with that as the laws against marijuana do nothing to prevent people smoking it, but more to provide huge revenue for the "corrections" industry, which benefits some $15 billion annually from the incarceration of people for whom marijuana is their drug of choice.

How often do powerful lobbying interests lose out to general common sense and the public interest?

Lest we forget:


Stories from Inside: Prisoner Rape and the War on Drugs

Except amongst the Federal Government?
Yet another "War on xxxxxx" which is known to be ineffective but also make the sitution worse. Are the policymakers cowards, idiots, traitors or kneepad wearers? Or all of the above?