Until they can remove (or severely reduce) the mind-altering effects from the drug I will oppose its legalization on any grounds.
CaliforniaJOSH will agree with me on this point, if you want to see what a mess "medical" marijuana has become you need look no further than the Golden State.
The vast majority of "medical" marijuana perscriptions are being issued to people that do not come remotely close to the life-or-death scenarios described by its proponents. Often times being issued for minor ailments such as headaches or other trivial problems.
And that's if they are even being truthful at all. Given reports from schools in California, this is highly unlikely.
I really wish they hadn't used the construction 'substance of abuse' in there, as if its ONLY use is abuse (although many certainly do think that about psychoactives).
Additionally, I hope it's found that the inhalation of the compound is far more effective in the reduction of lung tumor growths than other delivery methods.
And no, I don't want to just smoke pot (I never have, fwiw), but I hate the government's war on drugs.
remove (or severely reduce) the mind-altering effects from the drug
Sure, right after they do the same for alcohol. cigarettes, coffee, tea, Prozac, sugar, and everything else that alters our mental state, including attractive women.
I've never liked the idea that recreational use of anything is "abuse."
There's a case heading to the California supreme court right now. An employer fired a worker because he failed a drug test. He sued them said it was his "medication". I think he'll win, unless the employer can get it tossed over to federal court. That case will change things.
There's another interesting correlation that I'm aware of. Hippie stoners from the 60's are now at the age where they should be getting parkinsons or alzheimers disease. And for some strange reason, those that smoked lots of weed are not getting one (or maybe both?) of those diseases anywhere near as often as the regular population.
The drugs in marijuana are so complex, scientists don't have them figured out. Unlike alcohol which is a simple molecule.
And there must be a reason why the brain has THC receptors. If I remember correctly, it's something to do with inflamation. So arthritis drugs might be coming up next.
So I guess that means you're opposed to the FDA-approved drug Marinol, which contains THC and is actually more psychoactive than smoked cannabis?
We're talking about marijuana. Marinol is not the subject of discussion. Please, if you would, stay on point.
We're talking about a drug that is not FDA approved. When the subject changes to FDA approved drugs let me know because right now I'm more concerned about keeping a drug from joining that list rather than questioning whether another drug should be removed.
I finjd it very telling that everyone here, except for CaliforniaJOSH, has ignored the failed marijuana experiment in California.
You're not interested in the medical benefits of the drug at all. If you were you'd be as troubled as the both of us about these developments.
But you're not. So don't give me the line you actually care about what marijuana may or may not do. I'm not gonna buy it.
Josh and Kevin are completely irrational of course. Countless drugs that are completely legal have much more severe mind-altering effects than marijuana does.
But, when a man has not reasoned his way into a position, it is impossible to reason him out of him--no matter how cruel and thoughtless and selfish his position might be (and Josh and Kevin are being all three, in spades).
Well, I'm in NY and I agree with Kevin and CAJosh - not because of the psychoactive properties, exactly - but because pot is the drug of choice for many abusers, easiest to get and grow [next we'll have subsidies for anyone with two growlights] and I see the social effects of widespread abuse every time I go about my job. No way in Hell I want to increase that corrosion.
And, no, I don't lay that all to the war on drugs. Thats too simplistic.
We're talking about marijuana. Marinol is not the subject of discussion. Please, if you would, stay on point.
Actually, Kevin the subject matter of the research article isn't marijuana at all; it is THC (Marinol):
They say this is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, Delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), inhibits EGF-induced growth and migration in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expressing non-small cell lung cancer cell lines.
The mice weren't given joints to smoke to reduce induced human cancer cells in the lungs of the wee guys. THC was injected into their tumors.
Then, for three weeks, researchers injected standard doses of THC into mice that had been implanted with human lung cancer cells, and found that tumors were reduced in size and weight by about 50 percent in treated animals compared to a control group.
Anju Preet, Ph.D., hopefully not the person in charge of the research messes up the science by suggesting:
The beauty of this study is that we are showing that a substance of abuse, if used prudently, may offer a new road to therapy against lung cancer, said Anju Preet, Ph.D., a researcher in the Division of Experimental Medicine
In fact, the mice weren't given a substance of abuse to smoke but that the THC was injected into their tumors bypassing overt systemic psychoactive effects that occurs with smoking marijuana.
Then, Anju Preet PhD--ends with:
Preet says much work is needed to clarify the pathway by which THC functions, and cautions that some animal studies have shown that THC can stimulate some cancers.
THC offers some promise, but we have a long way to go before we know what its potential is, she said.
None of that is of course interesting but in order to publish the propaganda article on the internet it has to be linked to the buzz word m-e-d-i-c-a-l
m-a-r-i-j-u-a-n-a tacitly implying its about smoking joints. But it ain't.
Carry on, please, or should one say back to:
Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows
You're confusing the symptom with the cause. People who have emotional problems will self-medicate with whatever's at hand.
Frankly, I'd rather see emotionally disturbed people smoke/eat marijuana than drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes or do much worse drugs. They're far less likely to harm themselves or others.
Frankly, I'd rather see emotionally disturbed people smoke/eat marijuana than drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes or do much worse drugs. They're far less likely to harm themselves or others.
Tall Dave,
You definitely need some on the ground experience on the subject matter.
When smoking pot is a necessity to the extent that someone will intercept Thanksgiving cards with monies for two young children sent by the grandmother, steals the money and throws away the cards, then, claims they never arrived, there's a problem with the live-in.
Then, when the need for more pot is necessary to the extent that said live-in steals the 12 year old's Wii which he bought with his own money to cash in for more pot, there's another problem. All done covertly.
But the gentleman neither smokes cigarettes nor drinks alcohol.
I wrote 'social effects', Dave. Nothing in there about emotional problems. I'm referring,instead, to the horrible decisions people make when under the influence of any drug, and not just marijuana. Additionally, these effects are social not personal, meaning they affect not only the user but persons the user interacts with, who may or may not use drugs themselves.
Things like contracting disease, dropping out of or failing school, petty crime like McK notes above, accidents, abuse or neglect of children, etc.
I find it very telling that everyone here, except for CaliforniaJOSH, has ignored the failed marijuana experiment in California.
"Failed"? I guess that depends on your benchmarks for success.
McKiernan: good points. Although I'm in favor of legal marijuana, most of these studies are irrelevant. They're like those studies that show a link between Nutra-Sweet and cancer: you'd have to drink 700 Diet Cokes every day for twenty years to get the carcinogenic dose.
Might inhaled marijuana have some health benefits? I don't doubt it, especially if you use a vaporizer. It very well might have a similar effect to red wine in terms of reducing the risk of certain types of disease. Nobody claims that red wine will cure a heart attack, but it might help to prevent one.
Mark @ Urthshu: I'm sorry that you've had negative experiences with potheads. I know that pot makes you lazy. That's one of the reasons that I smoke it! My mind sometimes goes too fast and I want to relax after work.
I'm perfectly willing to say that smoking marijuana has some drawbacks. Everything has drawbacks. But laziness (and all the petty crime and other negatives that some of you have mention) goes only one side of the ledger. The important quesiton is: are the negative effects of marijuana consumption worth the costs of marijuana prohibition? Do you really think we're getting a good return on the War on Drugs Marijuana?
I'd much rather have people sit at home and hit the bong in peace than be forced to pay for cops to stop people from sitting at home and hitting the bong. It's a waste of perfectly good money - my money.
I have never known anyone who thinks that Prohibition was a good idea, yet I know many who support the continued prohibition of marijuana. Here's what I want to know: In what way does marijuana differ from alcohol such that the lessons of Prohibition are inapplicable to marijuana?
These comments are rapidly approaching their sell-by date, as we're getting into Anecdote P0ker ("I see your Thanksgiving money theft, and I raise you a successful stockbroker who uses marijuana to relax after work!). All I'll add at this point is that the theft wouldn't be necessary if marijuana was $10/oz., instead of $300/oz.
I used to be very strongly against any use of pot.
I've busted up a lot of drug rings myself, and my brother smoked as a kid and he ain't really right in the head, not fully anyways. Though that's a chicken and the egg question. And I sorta suspect may could say the same of me.
But my brother is also severely busted up, suffers a degenerative disease, and although I don't have his problems I have had my back broken for me on more than one occasion and a number of other sorta serious injuries, stab wounds, nerve damage, severe concussions, busted kneecaps, broken bones, etc. Since I never thought I'd see the far side of 30 when I was younger it didn't matter to me then how much I got slapped around, beat up, shot at, hit on, and so forth. Now it's kind of a different story. So as I get older I get more sympathetic to the idea of a drug like pot, not used to get high all of the time, but used to reduce pain in cancer patients, or for people who are really busted up and gonna get no better.
I won't take drugs myself, not even pain killers most of the time, but as my injuries do more and more to cripple me and to hurt me over time I soften on others using things like pot to relieve their pain. I have a kinda high tolerance for pain and always have, and think pain does me some good by keeping me sharp and from getting soft, so I don't run form it, but I know everybody ain't like me, and certainly know most folks don't wanna be like me.
It does bother me, the other aspects of pot (other than the pain killing part), and yes I have enough personal experience to know that many users are weak enough in the head to skip from 420 Bashville to Smacktown and Candyland without stopping at Go to collect 200 dollars. As a matter of fact they're far more often than not pushing over for the 2 bills, and more, to clear their next score once they've figured out they can 3750 or A-bomb their high-roll.
Still, if there were some way to use pot to kill pain, and if most users used it for that I wouldn't care anymore.
But I suspect a lot of people inclined to pot their pain would also be inclined to plant their ambition and self-discipline into an early shallow grave as well. Not that you can stop that kinda fella from doing that anyways, one excuse is as good as another.
But I also have to reckon with and acknowledge the fact that not everybody is weak in willpower. I took up drinking again (which I was able to put down and never try again for 20 or so years cause I just didn't care to) after doing a lot of research about the medical benefits of some kinds of alcohol. I never get drunk, and don't really drink much, but I do feel a lot healthier now that I do drink again, especially the old ticker. It also seems to lubricate my joints and relax me right before bed, which is when I usually drink a beer or glass of red wine.
I guess as I age I'm more sympathetic about some things.
Still suspicious, but more sympathetic.
That ain't an answer to nothing, or anything for that matter, I know that.
But then again I gave up a long time ago thinking I knew everything, much less how to fix everything.
Hell, for all I was reckoning I should have been in my grave long ago.
Show's you what I know, and just how unlucky the world can be.
I'm referring,instead, to the horrible decisions people make when under the influence of any drug, and not just marijuana.
Not all drugs have the same cognitive effects. The only mind-altering drugs I have ever consumed are alcohol and marijuana (and painkillers, but not recreationally). I've done a lot of stupid stuff while drunk, things that I've regretted later, and stuff that I didn't remember. The only "horrible decisions" I've made while smoking weed involved eating an entire box or bag of something. Marijuana makes it harder to reason your way through difficult (or simple) concepts, but stoned you won't do anything that you wouldn't have done sober.
The important question is: are the negative effects of marijuana consumption worth the costs of marijuana prohibition?
Not the same thing. Are the negative effects of consumption worth the cost of legalisation? For that, NO. No, it isn't.
And, no, I don't think all or even most of the negative effects will be solved by the costs being driven down. I'm not making an economic argument to begin with.
But, if you'd like, at least the prohibition keeps everybody employed, doesn't it? Cops and dealers and drug testers and lawyers and prison guards and activists who want to legalise it. Cool.
Not the same thing. Are the negative effects of consumption worth the cost of legalisation? For that, NO. No, it isn't.
That's not right, but I know what you're trying to get at. If marijuana was legalized, its use would certainly increase, as would certain negative effects currently associated with it. But we also would save money on enforcement and incarceration, and crime associated with marijuana smuggling and commerce would decrease. The question is whether the negatives from increased use would outweigh the money saved and crime reduced from legalization. You've decided that the answer to that is NO, in caps. Okay.
I'll repeat what I said earlier:
In what way does marijuana differ from alcohol such that the lessons of Prohibition are inapplicable to marijuana? Every one of your arguments supports the criminalization of alcohol, and yet I cannot imagine you favoring Prohibition. But maybe you do...
Shall we now discuss live-in's $ 30,000 + credit card balance ?
I suppose that's marijuana's fault, too...
Anyway, I'm glad you've come around on the silliness of using anecdotes.
Anyway, I'm glad you've come around on the silliness of using anecdotes.
Hey, as long as you know they're silly. ;^D
Long time ago I had this alcoholic roommate, right? He always said he wasn't hurting anybody but himself [sound familiar? That's the argument you're making]. And it was true in a lot of ways. He was a kind of quiet drunk, didn't drive drunk, never raged or any of that crap. It was all cool until I had to get him out to rehab; that's when I found out he wasn't paying his half of the bills. I see that crap all the time now, and more and nastier, and they all say that same thing. Drug users are often kind, funny individuals, not really as creative as they think they are, but nice for all that - but I trust them as far as I can throw 'em.
I notice that neither Kevin nor Tall Dave seem to have responded to my earlier comments.
I think you're putting them both in a bind by removing the pot angle, McK. Keeping it narrow and chemical, getting the medical benefits from injecting THC for a narrow band of illnesses rather than getting high or legalising the drug wholesale - maybe that'd be OK.
I wish I had the time right now to argue my position on this, but I can't, so I'll ramble off the following:
My take is this: If you believe marijuana is harmless, you will argue for its legalization. No surprise there.
If you believe that it's not harmless, like I do, and generally bad for a society that already has problems with tobacco, alcohol, and the illegal drugs, then you'll argue to keep it illegal.
I do believe it has medical benefits, especially for chemotherapy.
I believe it should only be legalized if the prices are kept at current levels, and most of that price is as tax, and that tax is used to fight the real war on drugs which is against meth, crack, heroin, cocaine, etc etc. I also think the death penalty needs to be utilized much greater, but not for anything related to marijuana. But certainly for heroin, crack, etc.
I used to think weed was harmless, then after a decade of watching my stoner friends turn into losers and develop mental problems, I changed my mind. It's not like crack where you see people go to hell immediately. It's not physically addictive. But it does change people that smoke it every day, and it changes them a few percentage every year. Compound that over a decade, and you've got a person who is fundamentally different, and that's bad for them and society.
Those that smoke it on occasion are probably not affected by it at all. Same with those that drink on occasion.
Some people argue for legalization of all drugs, to fight crime. Why doesn't the netherlands have crack and heroin available in the stores? Answer is that it's a very bad idea.
Just because some people can handle their alcohol, doesn't mean we all can. Same with marijuana. I know folks that are high all the time, every day of every month of every year. The human brain simply isn't designed for that.
Also, if schizophrenia or other mental illnesses run in your family, chronic marijuana use can bring it to the surface if you've been dealt a bad set of DNA. That's an established fact, not speculation. European scientists proved it.
California's democrats really screwed up with the medical marijuana stuff, it's abused to such a degree it's a complete joke. They even named the bill SB420. Senate Bill 420. For those of you that know, 420 is code for "lets get high".. It was no coincidence.
The roman empire fell from within, for many reasons, one of which was laziness. I wonder if the chinese and indians are kicking back getting high, thinking they're at the top of the world? I dobut it. But I know lots of americans are.
Long time ago I had this alcoholic roommate, right? He always said he wasn't hurting anybody but himself [sound familiar? That's the argument you're making].
Yes, it's the same argument that I'm making.
I'd like to turn the question around on you, though, and get an answer to something that I've asked twice already: In what way does marijuana differ from alcohol such that the lessons of Prohibition are inapplicable to marijuana?
I don't need to tell anyone that Prohibition was a spectacular failure. No one in his right mind would defend it. And yet a majority of Americans think that prohibiting pot is the right thing to do? Why? What's so special about pot?
In what way does marijuana differ from alcohol such that the lessons of Prohibition are inapplicable to marijuana? Every one of your arguments supports the criminalization of alcohol, and yet I cannot imagine you favoring Prohibition. But maybe you do...
Seconded.
I also want to know what grounds or principles or whatever it is that the Pot-hibitionists are citing as being more fundamental and primary than the right to self-determination. How exactly are you supposed to be entitled to be able to tell the rest of us adult Citizens what we may or may not do with and to our own bodies?
"In what way does marijuana differ from alcohol such that the lessons of Prohibition are inapplicable to marijuana? "
Marijuana prohibition may very well fail for the same reason alcohol prohibition did. It's failing in california right now. However, alcohol was legal, then made illegal, then legal again. Marijuana has been illegal for generations. Alcohol is taxed, probably not enough, and that tax revenue is used for beneficial things. If marijuana is legalized, it should be heavily taxed as about 80% of the price, etc, and prisons should be built with the money, among other things.
If I may take a stab in the dark: I'm going to guess you're in your 20's. If so, wait a decade or more, then see what your perspective is. Watch your friends who smoke it daily, and see how their lives go. You will eventually notice most of them as underachievers, at best, and some with genuine mental problems at worst.
And since I don't use my full name here, I'd like to state for the record that I've smoked lots of weed, for many years, and it eventually screwed me up. Not in the normal ways though. Gave me low level anxiety, and caused me to keep people at a distance. I thought it was my personality, but after a year of not smoking it, it was obvious to me how much different I was. So my view of this is not only from what happened with my friends, but with what happened with myself. The fact that marijuana doesn't cause a hangover is actually a bad thing, because a hangover might motivate people to not abuse it like I did. I never thought it was harmless, I just thought it was harmless to ME, because I wasn't lazy and stupid and unmotivated by it. But in the end, it got me too.
McKiernan:
"It impairs judgement and innocent people die in auto fatalities because of pot-heads behind the wheel. "
Actually, in all fairness, folks who smoke it all the time seem to be able to drive ok. It doesn't effect coordination like alcohol does. I drove fine. I could even fix broken computer networks while high as a kite, and get straight A's thru college. It didn't make me lazy and stupid, it actually made me a bit uptight. So any claims that marijuana relaxes people will have me raise my hand an object.
There's actually 2 'strains' of weed. One is known for relaxation, another is known for being 'cerebral'. I used to write code and daydream about science after smoking the second one.
I believe alcohol is generally worse for society than marijuana, because stoners really don't get violent when high. Ask any cop. However, using logic that 'alcohol is legal, therefore weed should be legal' is just too simplistic for me to accept.
You know, I used to think, no, I was sure, God intended me to die before I was thirty.
The day I woke up on my 30th birthday it suddenly struck me that God is a mystery and I had no real idea of what he intended for me.
And although I'm pretty much absolutely sure of what my fate will be (I keep seeing myself dying as either an old monk staring up at the sun in the desert, or like when I was younger, of being killed by other men), and of some of the things I will achieve, and of some of the things he wants me to achieve, that lesson taught me that he always has a Wild Card, even when the hand seems flat.
So I reckon I'll play that hand since he wants me to.
But I got no real idea of why he wants me to.
And maybe that's the bets thing about God. That he can be with a fella when the fella has no real idea of how, when, what, where, or why.
I don't really deserve the extra time I've had, and maybe it was always planned that I live as long as I did. Or maybe something changed along the way. I really can't tell ya.
And although I have absolutely no fear of death, and often look forward to it (the method of getting there maybe not so much, that'll all depend), cause then I know I'm gonna have all kinds of abilities to do all kinds of things that I can only dream about now, but looking back on it all, it made me very appreciative, and gave me the opportunity to do things while still breathing I would have never done otherwise.
It's kinda hard to explain, certain you're living on borrowed time. But on the other hand, I'm also kinda grateful he's in the lending business. I don't know why he thinks I'm worth the risk and the investment, but, I guess it doesn't really matter, he knows a lot more than I do. One day, just outta curiosity though, I think I'm gonna ask him. I don't really expect an answer, but I'm gonna ask anyways, just to see if he will.
"I don't need to tell anyone that Prohibition was a spectacular failure. No one in his right mind would defend it. And yet a majority of Americans think that prohibiting pot is the right thing to do? Why?"
An obvious possibility is that prohibiting pot isn't failing nearly as badly as Prohibition.
I don't know if that's true, but if you accept what people "know" as evidence....
11.21.2007 1:16pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
CaliforniaJOSH will agree with me on this point, if you want to see what a mess "medical" marijuana has become you need look no further than the Golden State.
The vast majority of "medical" marijuana perscriptions are being issued to people that do not come remotely close to the life-or-death scenarios described by its proponents. Often times being issued for minor ailments such as headaches or other trivial problems.
And that's if they are even being truthful at all. Given reports from schools in California, this is highly unlikely.
Additionally, I hope it's found that the inhalation of the compound is far more effective in the reduction of lung tumor growths than other delivery methods.
And no, I don't want to just smoke pot (I never have, fwiw), but I hate the government's war on drugs.
Why?
Sure, right after they do the same for alcohol. cigarettes, coffee, tea, Prozac, sugar, and everything else that alters our mental state, including attractive women.
I've never liked the idea that recreational use of anything is "abuse."
Until you can provide a rational reason for regulating other people's emotions, I will oppose all efforts to continue prohibition.
So I guess that means you're opposed to the FDA-approved drug Marinol, which contains THC and is actually more psychoactive than smoked cannabis?
There's a case heading to the California supreme court right now. An employer fired a worker because he failed a drug test. He sued them said it was his "medication". I think he'll win, unless the employer can get it tossed over to federal court. That case will change things.
There's another interesting correlation that I'm aware of. Hippie stoners from the 60's are now at the age where they should be getting parkinsons or alzheimers disease. And for some strange reason, those that smoked lots of weed are not getting one (or maybe both?) of those diseases anywhere near as often as the regular population.
The drugs in marijuana are so complex, scientists don't have them figured out. Unlike alcohol which is a simple molecule.
And there must be a reason why the brain has THC receptors. If I remember correctly, it's something to do with inflamation. So arthritis drugs might be coming up next.
We're talking about marijuana. Marinol is not the subject of discussion. Please, if you would, stay on point.
We're talking about a drug that is not FDA approved. When the subject changes to FDA approved drugs let me know because right now I'm more concerned about keeping a drug from joining that list rather than questioning whether another drug should be removed.
I finjd it very telling that everyone here, except for CaliforniaJOSH, has ignored the failed marijuana experiment in California.
You're not interested in the medical benefits of the drug at all. If you were you'd be as troubled as the both of us about these developments.
But you're not. So don't give me the line you actually care about what marijuana may or may not do. I'm not gonna buy it.
But, when a man has not reasoned his way into a position, it is impossible to reason him out of him--no matter how cruel and thoughtless and selfish his position might be (and Josh and Kevin are being all three, in spades).
But, once again--cruel, selfish people who haven't reasoned their way into a position will not be reasoned out of it.
(For the record, I don't use pot.)
Then again, most mice aren't heavy duty cigarette smokers except the ones that like Marboros and Camels. That helps keep the figures down or is it up.
So much for internet science.
And, no, I don't lay that all to the war on drugs. Thats too simplistic.
And, yes, alcohol does that too.
For a long time, people thought cigarettes aided digestion and reduced stress, too. So what?
Actually, Kevin the subject matter of the research article isn't marijuana at all; it is THC (Marinol):
They say this is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, Delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), inhibits EGF-induced growth and migration in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expressing non-small cell lung cancer cell lines.
The mice weren't given joints to smoke to reduce induced human cancer cells in the lungs of the wee guys. THC was injected into their tumors.
Then, for three weeks, researchers injected standard doses of THC into mice that had been implanted with human lung cancer cells, and found that tumors were reduced in size and weight by about 50 percent in treated animals compared to a control group.
Anju Preet, Ph.D., hopefully not the person in charge of the research messes up the science by suggesting:
The beauty of this study is that we are showing that a substance of abuse, if used prudently, may offer a new road to therapy against lung cancer, said Anju Preet, Ph.D., a researcher in the Division of Experimental Medicine
In fact, the mice weren't given a substance of abuse to smoke but that the THC was injected into their tumors bypassing overt systemic psychoactive effects that occurs with smoking marijuana.
Then, Anju Preet PhD--ends with:
Preet says much work is needed to clarify the pathway by which THC functions, and cautions that some animal studies have shown that THC can stimulate some cancers.
THC offers some promise, but we have a long way to go before we know what its potential is, she said.
None of that is of course interesting but in order to publish the
propagandaarticle on the internet it has to be linked to the buzz word m-e-d-i-c-a-lm-a-r-i-j-u-a-n-a tacitly implying its about smoking joints. But it ain't.
Carry on, please, or should one say back to:
Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows
You're confusing the symptom with the cause. People who have emotional problems will self-medicate with whatever's at hand.
Frankly, I'd rather see emotionally disturbed people smoke/eat marijuana than drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes or do much worse drugs. They're far less likely to harm themselves or others.
Tall Dave,
You definitely need some on the ground experience on the subject matter.
When smoking pot is a necessity to the extent that someone will intercept Thanksgiving cards with monies for two young children sent by the grandmother, steals the money and throws away the cards, then, claims they never arrived, there's a problem with the live-in.
Then, when the need for more pot is necessary to the extent that said live-in steals the 12 year old's Wii which he bought with his own money to cash in for more pot, there's another problem. All done covertly.
But the gentleman neither smokes cigarettes nor drinks alcohol.
So what exactly is your point Tall Dave ?
Things like contracting disease, dropping out of or failing school, petty crime like McK notes above, accidents, abuse or neglect of children, etc.
"Failed"? I guess that depends on your benchmarks for success.
McKiernan: good points. Although I'm in favor of legal marijuana, most of these studies are irrelevant. They're like those studies that show a link between Nutra-Sweet and cancer: you'd have to drink 700 Diet Cokes every day for twenty years to get the carcinogenic dose.
Might inhaled marijuana have some health benefits? I don't doubt it, especially if you use a vaporizer. It very well might have a similar effect to red wine in terms of reducing the risk of certain types of disease. Nobody claims that red wine will cure a heart attack, but it might help to prevent one.
Mark @ Urthshu: I'm sorry that you've had negative experiences with potheads. I know that pot makes you lazy. That's one of the reasons that I smoke it! My mind sometimes goes too fast and I want to relax after work.
I'm perfectly willing to say that smoking marijuana has some drawbacks. Everything has drawbacks. But laziness (and all the petty crime and other negatives that some of you have mention) goes only one side of the ledger. The important quesiton is: are the negative effects of marijuana consumption worth the costs of marijuana prohibition? Do you really think we're getting a good return on the War on
DrugsMarijuana?I'd much rather have people sit at home and hit the bong in peace than be forced to pay for cops to stop people from sitting at home and hitting the bong. It's a waste of perfectly good money - my money.
I have never known anyone who thinks that Prohibition was a good idea, yet I know many who support the continued prohibition of marijuana. Here's what I want to know: In what way does marijuana differ from alcohol such that the lessons of Prohibition are inapplicable to marijuana?
These comments are rapidly approaching their sell-by date, as we're getting into Anecdote P0ker ("I see your Thanksgiving money theft, and I raise you a successful stockbroker who uses marijuana to relax after work!). All I'll add at this point is that the theft wouldn't be necessary if marijuana was $10/oz., instead of $300/oz.
That is simply a terrific point.
Shall we now discuss live-in's $ 30,000 + credit card balance ? >
I've busted up a lot of drug rings myself, and my brother smoked as a kid and he ain't really right in the head, not fully anyways. Though that's a chicken and the egg question. And I sorta suspect may could say the same of me.
But my brother is also severely busted up, suffers a degenerative disease, and although I don't have his problems I have had my back broken for me on more than one occasion and a number of other sorta serious injuries, stab wounds, nerve damage, severe concussions, busted kneecaps, broken bones, etc. Since I never thought I'd see the far side of 30 when I was younger it didn't matter to me then how much I got slapped around, beat up, shot at, hit on, and so forth. Now it's kind of a different story. So as I get older I get more sympathetic to the idea of a drug like pot, not used to get high all of the time, but used to reduce pain in cancer patients, or for people who are really busted up and gonna get no better.
I won't take drugs myself, not even pain killers most of the time, but as my injuries do more and more to cripple me and to hurt me over time I soften on others using things like pot to relieve their pain. I have a kinda high tolerance for pain and always have, and think pain does me some good by keeping me sharp and from getting soft, so I don't run form it, but I know everybody ain't like me, and certainly know most folks don't wanna be like me.
It does bother me, the other aspects of pot (other than the pain killing part), and yes I have enough personal experience to know that many users are weak enough in the head to skip from 420 Bashville to Smacktown and Candyland without stopping at Go to collect 200 dollars. As a matter of fact they're far more often than not pushing over for the 2 bills, and more, to clear their next score once they've figured out they can 3750 or A-bomb their high-roll.
Still, if there were some way to use pot to kill pain, and if most users used it for that I wouldn't care anymore.
But I suspect a lot of people inclined to pot their pain would also be inclined to plant their ambition and self-discipline into an early shallow grave as well. Not that you can stop that kinda fella from doing that anyways, one excuse is as good as another.
But I also have to reckon with and acknowledge the fact that not everybody is weak in willpower. I took up drinking again (which I was able to put down and never try again for 20 or so years cause I just didn't care to) after doing a lot of research about the medical benefits of some kinds of alcohol. I never get drunk, and don't really drink much, but I do feel a lot healthier now that I do drink again, especially the old ticker. It also seems to lubricate my joints and relax me right before bed, which is when I usually drink a beer or glass of red wine.
I guess as I age I'm more sympathetic about some things.
Still suspicious, but more sympathetic.
That ain't an answer to nothing, or anything for that matter, I know that.
But then again I gave up a long time ago thinking I knew everything, much less how to fix everything.
Hell, for all I was reckoning I should have been in my grave long ago.
Show's you what I know, and just how unlucky the world can be.
Not all drugs have the same cognitive effects. The only mind-altering drugs I have ever consumed are alcohol and marijuana (and painkillers, but not recreationally). I've done a lot of stupid stuff while drunk, things that I've regretted later, and stuff that I didn't remember. The only "horrible decisions" I've made while smoking weed involved eating an entire box or bag of something. Marijuana makes it harder to reason your way through difficult (or simple) concepts, but stoned you won't do anything that you wouldn't have done sober.
Not the same thing. Are the negative effects of consumption worth the cost of legalisation? For that, NO. No, it isn't.
And, no, I don't think all or even most of the negative effects will be solved by the costs being driven down. I'm not making an economic argument to begin with.
But, if you'd like, at least the prohibition keeps everybody employed, doesn't it? Cops and dealers and drug testers and lawyers and prison guards and activists who want to legalise it. Cool.
That's not right, but I know what you're trying to get at. If marijuana was legalized, its use would certainly increase, as would certain negative effects currently associated with it. But we also would save money on enforcement and incarceration, and crime associated with marijuana smuggling and commerce would decrease. The question is whether the negatives from increased use would outweigh the money saved and crime reduced from legalization. You've decided that the answer to that is NO, in caps. Okay.
I'll repeat what I said earlier:
In what way does marijuana differ from alcohol such that the lessons of Prohibition are inapplicable to marijuana? Every one of your arguments supports the criminalization of alcohol, and yet I cannot imagine you favoring Prohibition. But maybe you do...
Shall we now discuss live-in's $ 30,000 + credit card balance ?
I suppose that's marijuana's fault, too...
Anyway, I'm glad you've come around on the silliness of using anecdotes.
You're only getting the foam of the waves.
The facts on the ground at the break of shore remain cryptic to protect the innocent.
I notice that neither Kevin nor Tall Dave seem to have responded to my earlier comments.
Hey, as long as you know they're silly. ;^D
Long time ago I had this alcoholic roommate, right? He always said he wasn't hurting anybody but himself [sound familiar? That's the argument you're making]. And it was true in a lot of ways. He was a kind of quiet drunk, didn't drive drunk, never raged or any of that crap. It was all cool until I had to get him out to rehab; that's when I found out he wasn't paying his half of the bills. I see that crap all the time now, and more and nastier, and they all say that same thing. Drug users are often kind, funny individuals, not really as creative as they think they are, but nice for all that - but I trust them as far as I can throw 'em.
I think you're putting them both in a bind by removing the pot angle, McK. Keeping it narrow and chemical, getting the medical benefits from injecting THC for a narrow band of illnesses rather than getting high or legalising the drug wholesale - maybe that'd be OK.
My take is this: If you believe marijuana is harmless, you will argue for its legalization. No surprise there.
If you believe that it's not harmless, like I do, and generally bad for a society that already has problems with tobacco, alcohol, and the illegal drugs, then you'll argue to keep it illegal.
I do believe it has medical benefits, especially for chemotherapy.
I believe it should only be legalized if the prices are kept at current levels, and most of that price is as tax, and that tax is used to fight the real war on drugs which is against meth, crack, heroin, cocaine, etc etc. I also think the death penalty needs to be utilized much greater, but not for anything related to marijuana. But certainly for heroin, crack, etc.
I used to think weed was harmless, then after a decade of watching my stoner friends turn into losers and develop mental problems, I changed my mind. It's not like crack where you see people go to hell immediately. It's not physically addictive. But it does change people that smoke it every day, and it changes them a few percentage every year. Compound that over a decade, and you've got a person who is fundamentally different, and that's bad for them and society.
Those that smoke it on occasion are probably not affected by it at all. Same with those that drink on occasion.
Some people argue for legalization of all drugs, to fight crime. Why doesn't the netherlands have crack and heroin available in the stores? Answer is that it's a very bad idea.
Just because some people can handle their alcohol, doesn't mean we all can. Same with marijuana. I know folks that are high all the time, every day of every month of every year. The human brain simply isn't designed for that.
Also, if schizophrenia or other mental illnesses run in your family, chronic marijuana use can bring it to the surface if you've been dealt a bad set of DNA. That's an established fact, not speculation. European scientists proved it.
California's democrats really screwed up with the medical marijuana stuff, it's abused to such a degree it's a complete joke. They even named the bill SB420. Senate Bill 420. For those of you that know, 420 is code for "lets get high".. It was no coincidence.
The roman empire fell from within, for many reasons, one of which was laziness. I wonder if the chinese and indians are kicking back getting high, thinking they're at the top of the world? I dobut it. But I know lots of americans are.
Yes, it's the same argument that I'm making.
I'd like to turn the question around on you, though, and get an answer to something that I've asked twice already: In what way does marijuana differ from alcohol such that the lessons of Prohibition are inapplicable to marijuana?
I don't need to tell anyone that Prohibition was a spectacular failure. No one in his right mind would defend it. And yet a majority of Americans think that prohibiting pot is the right thing to do? Why? What's so special about pot?
It impairs judgement and innocent people die in auto fatalities because of pot-heads behind the wheel.
Then, again, if you're stoned everything is cool, right ?
Seconded.
I also want to know what grounds or principles or whatever it is that the Pot-hibitionists are citing as being more fundamental and primary than the right to self-determination. How exactly are you supposed to be entitled to be able to tell the rest of us adult Citizens what we may or may not do with and to our own bodies?
"In what way does marijuana differ from alcohol such that the lessons of Prohibition are inapplicable to marijuana? "
Marijuana prohibition may very well fail for the same reason alcohol prohibition did. It's failing in california right now. However, alcohol was legal, then made illegal, then legal again. Marijuana has been illegal for generations. Alcohol is taxed, probably not enough, and that tax revenue is used for beneficial things. If marijuana is legalized, it should be heavily taxed as about 80% of the price, etc, and prisons should be built with the money, among other things.
If I may take a stab in the dark: I'm going to guess you're in your 20's. If so, wait a decade or more, then see what your perspective is. Watch your friends who smoke it daily, and see how their lives go. You will eventually notice most of them as underachievers, at best, and some with genuine mental problems at worst.
And since I don't use my full name here, I'd like to state for the record that I've smoked lots of weed, for many years, and it eventually screwed me up. Not in the normal ways though. Gave me low level anxiety, and caused me to keep people at a distance. I thought it was my personality, but after a year of not smoking it, it was obvious to me how much different I was. So my view of this is not only from what happened with my friends, but with what happened with myself. The fact that marijuana doesn't cause a hangover is actually a bad thing, because a hangover might motivate people to not abuse it like I did. I never thought it was harmless, I just thought it was harmless to ME, because I wasn't lazy and stupid and unmotivated by it. But in the end, it got me too.
McKiernan:
"It impairs judgement and innocent people die in auto fatalities because of pot-heads behind the wheel. "
Actually, in all fairness, folks who smoke it all the time seem to be able to drive ok. It doesn't effect coordination like alcohol does. I drove fine. I could even fix broken computer networks while high as a kite, and get straight A's thru college. It didn't make me lazy and stupid, it actually made me a bit uptight. So any claims that marijuana relaxes people will have me raise my hand an object.
There's actually 2 'strains' of weed. One is known for relaxation, another is known for being 'cerebral'. I used to write code and daydream about science after smoking the second one.
I believe alcohol is generally worse for society than marijuana, because stoners really don't get violent when high. Ask any cop. However, using logic that 'alcohol is legal, therefore weed should be legal' is just too simplistic for me to accept.
It's sure good you had G-d with you.
You know, I used to think, no, I was sure, God intended me to die before I was thirty.
The day I woke up on my 30th birthday it suddenly struck me that God is a mystery and I had no real idea of what he intended for me.
And although I'm pretty much absolutely sure of what my fate will be (I keep seeing myself dying as either an old monk staring up at the sun in the desert, or like when I was younger, of being killed by other men), and of some of the things I will achieve, and of some of the things he wants me to achieve, that lesson taught me that he always has a Wild Card, even when the hand seems flat.
So I reckon I'll play that hand since he wants me to.
But I got no real idea of why he wants me to.
And maybe that's the bets thing about God. That he can be with a fella when the fella has no real idea of how, when, what, where, or why.
I don't really deserve the extra time I've had, and maybe it was always planned that I live as long as I did. Or maybe something changed along the way. I really can't tell ya.
And although I have absolutely no fear of death, and often look forward to it (the method of getting there maybe not so much, that'll all depend), cause then I know I'm gonna have all kinds of abilities to do all kinds of things that I can only dream about now, but looking back on it all, it made me very appreciative, and gave me the opportunity to do things while still breathing I would have never done otherwise.
It's kinda hard to explain, certain you're living on borrowed time. But on the other hand, I'm also kinda grateful he's in the lending business. I don't know why he thinks I'm worth the risk and the investment, but, I guess it doesn't really matter, he knows a lot more than I do. One day, just outta curiosity though, I think I'm gonna ask him. I don't really expect an answer, but I'm gonna ask anyways, just to see if he will.
Microsoft grammar checking error, but it struck me as kinda funny and appropriate. So I'm leaving it that way.
Well, I gotta go.
Work to do.
See ya later.
An obvious possibility is that prohibiting pot isn't failing nearly as badly as Prohibition.
I don't know if that's true, but if you accept what people "know" as evidence....
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.