Well, I can see this will go nowhere since there isn't any study for anything that will not be biased.
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.
Many lose themselves to things without realizing it, though.
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.
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.
(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...
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.
Done ranting. Flame me now. But at least read my post before you flame.
Just to make my position more clear-
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricksbrain
Use, abuse, and addiction are different things for sure...
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 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.
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?
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
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.
Quote:
The truth is its it is less safe. Marijuana is more toxic than cigarettes.
.... 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.
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.
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.
The helicopter hovered over the Coyote Creek Canyon at the south end of Henry Coe State Park. Inside, Mike Ferry, the park's supervising ranger, scanned the terrain below with binoculars, searching for groves of marijuana.
"This is where we found the big one, 8,000 plants in two groves," Ferry said. "At $5,000 a plant, that could be worth $40 million on the street. Take it to the East Coast, you double or triple the value."
Ferry, an affable man and wildlife expert, grimaced as he described raiding the illegal sites.
"At these gardens, we've found dead animals and birds, ammonia sulfate, pesticides and herbicides, ponds and creeks lined with plastics, and garbage all over the place," he said. "The environmental damage is huge."
The public has been warned about the potential danger of wandering into an illegal marijuana garden at parks and national forests. But it is fish, wildlife and habitat that are being butchered, Ferry said.
"They start killing them, birds, deer, whatever comes in," Ferry said. The outlaws kill them, he said, to keep wildlife from eating the crop.
Timing is now critical because illegal marijuana gardens are near harvest, which occurs in California from Labor Day weekend through early October.
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.
Good job. Well, that settles it. We should continue outlawing a plant that is of low toxicity and rarely fatal...to animals. Staggering.
...
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.
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?
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:
Quote:
It is widely accepted that the U.S. ?war on drugs? has been both costly and ineffective. Less known is the devastating link between current U.S. drug policies, prison overcrowding, and rape behind bars. In Stories from Inside, a report released today, Stop Prisoner Rape (SPR) makes clear for the first time how the war on drugs has contributed to the sexual violence that plagues prisons and jails across the country, derailing justice and shattering human dignity.
Stories from Inside offers first-hand accounts by 24 prisoner rape survivors, all of whom were sexually assaulted while serving time for a non-violent drug-related offense. The report also offers an overview and analysis of the war on drugs, highlighting how it affects the sentences and prison experiences of hundreds of thousands of Americans and making policy recommendations.
It is widely accepted that the U.S. ?war on drugs? has been both costly and ineffective
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?
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?
I don't think it's lobbying interests per se, though I do agree with you that our pot laws are...dumb. It should be legal, just as tobacco is, but there of course should be penalties for driving stoned, public stone-ed-ness, etc.
As to what has caused the laws, my feeling is that it's the Nanny State we have, which to be fair is motivated by Marijuana being a gateway drug of sorts.
Then again, I heard about a study years ago (no idea where to find this) that showed that one major common element in prison populations was early-aged and frequent use of caffeine. One could speculate this was more of phsycological effect of "getting a high" and needing to keep that high going with other potentially nefarious/questionable activities. Of course, caffeine is a legal and highly addictive substance, anecdotally and informally speaking.
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.
I don't think he's a troll...he's just like 17 years old.
Comments
Well, I can see this will go nowhere since there isn't any study for anything that will not be biased.
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 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.
Many lose themselves to things without realizing it, though.
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.
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-
Use, abuse, and addiction are different things for sure...
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 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.
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?
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
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.
The truth is its it is less safe. Marijuana is more toxic than cigarettes.
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.
if someone has a successful life, they are happy, and don't bother anyone- then what's the difference to you?
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?
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.
Just ranting...feel free to ignore me...
Did you know that wildlife avoids marijuana plants? Kind of sad they have it figured out and we don't.
Done ranting. Flame me now. But at least read my post before you flame.
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?
Life sure seems good to 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?
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.
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.
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 helicopter hovered over the Coyote Creek Canyon at the south end of Henry Coe State Park. Inside, Mike Ferry, the park's supervising ranger, scanned the terrain below with binoculars, searching for groves of marijuana.
"This is where we found the big one, 8,000 plants in two groves," Ferry said. "At $5,000 a plant, that could be worth $40 million on the street. Take it to the East Coast, you double or triple the value."
Ferry, an affable man and wildlife expert, grimaced as he described raiding the illegal sites.
"At these gardens, we've found dead animals and birds, ammonia sulfate, pesticides and herbicides, ponds and creeks lined with plastics, and garbage all over the place," he said. "The environmental damage is huge."
The public has been warned about the potential danger of wandering into an illegal marijuana garden at parks and national forests. But it is fish, wildlife and habitat that are being butchered, Ferry said.
"They start killing them, birds, deer, whatever comes in," Ferry said. The outlaws kill them, he said, to keep wildlife from eating the crop.
Timing is now critical because illegal marijuana gardens are near harvest, which occurs in California from Labor Day weekend through early October.
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.
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.
Good job. Well, that settles it. We should continue outlawing a plant that is of low toxicity and rarely fatal...to animals. Staggering.
...
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.
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?
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:
It is widely accepted that the U.S. ?war on drugs? has been both costly and ineffective. Less known is the devastating link between current U.S. drug policies, prison overcrowding, and rape behind bars. In Stories from Inside, a report released today, Stop Prisoner Rape (SPR) makes clear for the first time how the war on drugs has contributed to the sexual violence that plagues prisons and jails across the country, derailing justice and shattering human dignity.
Stories from Inside offers first-hand accounts by 24 prisoner rape survivors, all of whom were sexually assaulted while serving time for a non-violent drug-related offense. The report also offers an overview and analysis of the war on drugs, highlighting how it affects the sentences and prison experiences of hundreds of thousands of Americans and making policy recommendations.
Stories from Inside: Prisoner Rape and the War on Drugs
It is widely accepted that the U.S. ?war on drugs? has been both costly and ineffective
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?
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?
I don't think it's lobbying interests per se, though I do agree with you that our pot laws are...dumb. It should be legal, just as tobacco is, but there of course should be penalties for driving stoned, public stone-ed-ness, etc.
As to what has caused the laws, my feeling is that it's the Nanny State we have, which to be fair is motivated by Marijuana being a gateway drug of sorts.
Then again, I heard about a study years ago (no idea where to find this) that showed that one major common element in prison populations was early-aged and frequent use of caffeine.
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.
I don't think he's a troll...he's just like 17 years old.
public stoned-ed-ness?
lol..
that's great.