It turns out that breathing cannabis is much more dangerous than can be imagined. by Kevin Roeten
(conservative)
Monday, January 18, 2010
Marijuana Much Riskier than Alcohol ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many have called for the decriminalization of marijuana? Supposedly it doesn't harm anyone else. Even President Obama repeatedly promised to stop federal interference with state laws that allow the medical use of marijuana. The writer is reminded of a comment by Connecticut editorialist Joe Bell saying that the legalization of drugs was reminiscent of how the subject can make otherwise solid thinkers turn into intellectual oatmeal.
So many have claimed that whatone does to himself without any harm to anyone else ishis business only. If you have any close relatives, if you go to school, if you work in a job that involves others, if you have a spouse and/orchildren, neighbors, or if you drive onroads, you directly effect others. That involves others 99.4% of the time. If you happen to be driving down the road and you become distracted or psychotic and hit me, or worse--my wife or daughter--you are an eminent hazard.
In Brent Bozell : "Weeds" and Marijuana Chic - Townhall.com, he points out that in the 2006 Nation Survey on Drug Use and Health, there were 14.8 million current users of "pot", and 4.2 million Americans who were classified as dependent or abusers of marijuana. The same 2006 survey also found that 16.1% of hospital drug treatment admissionswere for marijuana, which was the primary drug of abuse.
From George Will : Dose of Realism in a Drug War - Townhall.com, it seems obvious that Gil Kerlikowshe, Directorof the Office of National Drug Control Policy,realized the difficulties with drugs in America--especially marijuana. Asked about marijuana being a "gateway" drug he responded guardedly, "You don't find many heroin users who didn't start with marijuana".The cannabis smoked today, referred to as "skunk" (or AK-47,White Widow, Armageddon), is readily accessible online.
Statistics from the National Treatment Agency (UK), revealednumber of under-18 year oldswho sought drug treatment foraddiction to marijuana almost doubled in a years time--from 5,000 in 2005 to 9,600 in 2006. Over 13,000 adults also sought similar treatmentfor addition. But that was 4 years ago. In "Pot Is More Dangerous than LSD or Heroine" - Liberal UK Newspaper ..., as well as the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, it was documented how the weed in circulation that the "baby-boomers" smoked in college was typically 2-3% tetrahydrocannabinol(THC). Now, the active ingredient of THC is 20-30% of the existing cannabis.
More importantly, a Study: Even Infrequent Use of Marijuana Increases Risk of...psychosis by 40%, was conducted. Alarmingly fromBritain is hard datawith emergency-room admissions involving cannabis are rising. Robin Murray (professor of Psychiatry at London's Institute of Psychiatry) says that, in his estimation, at least 25,000 of the 250,000 schizophrenics in in the UK could have avoidedthe affliction if they had not used cannabis. "Psychosis" is defined by the dictionary as: "Any severe formof mental disturbance or disease which may also be associated with physical disease, and which producesdeep and far reaching disruption of normal behavior and social functioning."
Medical Reseach Council(Professor Colin Blakemore) admitted, "The link between cannabis and psychosis is quite clear now; it wasn't 10 years ago." Antonio Maria Costa (UN Office on Drugs and Crime) said "Evidence of the damage to mental health caused by cannabis use--from loss of concentration to paranoia, aggressiveness and outright psychosis--is mounting and cannot be ignored." Confirming, but alarming data from a 2005 study at New Zealand's University of Otaga revealed that marijuana smoking can raise the risk of mental illness by 50%.
Jonathon Owen (Independent/ England) had previously campaigned for the legalization of 'pot'. Now, with the recent available medical data, he admits that key elements of their decriminalization efforts were flawed. A Canadian Supreme Court declared it within the government's jurisdiction to outlaw its use [So how dangerous is skunk? - Health News, Health & Families - The ...]. Canadian Director Derek Rogusky (Focus on the Family) showed how decriminalization of marijuana actually led to greater use (see above link on "pot is more dangerous").
In the Netherlands, decriminalization was accompanied by large increases in the numbers of users. Just between 1984 and 1992, student increases in the use of marijuana was 250%. Interesting, he also found out that young people who use marijuana are 85x more likely to begin using cocaine than teens who never tried 'pot'. Mexican President Vincente Fox reversed his decision to decriminalize marijuana as can be seen in [link edited for length]
The Office of National Drug Control Policy (White House) admitted that a teenager who was depressed in the last year was twice as likely to have used marijuana than teenagers who did not report being depressed (25% to 12%) [Office of National Drug Control Policy - Juveniles & Drugs: Facts ...]. Depression at some time is a fact of life for most teenagers sometime during the year. And they're the ones calling for decriminalization .
Alcohol may be risky at high levels, but knowing the number of drinks you've had, what your alcohol tolerance is, or simply taking a breathlyzer test to make sure you're under 0.8 % alcohol in the bloodstream can keep one within the lawful limit. For marijuana, one doesn't know his tolerance, there are no legal limits of detectability, one normally drives almost everywhere, no one knows the actual potency of any cannabis plantnor do they know what the future potency may be, and one rarely knows if they can become psychotic, or at what level the symptoms my raise their ugly head.
In fact it's a good bet that if you've ever smoked cannabis before, you'll probably do it again. And the writer would somehow be foolish enough to givehis OKfor you to smoke marijuana before or during driving around his wife or children? Maybe when pigs fly.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Kevin Roeten only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Kevin Roeten is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
This is the worst written piece of junk I've ever had to read. I can drudge my way through Ayn Rand's writting better than this. Than you for the horrid propaganda.
Did you read any of the links that I provided? Is your opinion based on what only you want to believe? Better question--have you ever smoked marijuana? Have you ever driven after, or while, you're smoking? We wish you the best. You're probably an accident waiting to happen.
I guess I hope I never see you on the road. Your parents, kids, neighbors, wife, friends--all put up with your behavior. May God have mercy on your soul when you're high and you maim or kill someone. Hey, you do read links, don't you?
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2010-01-19 06:45:52
HI Kevin,
 Fear of the unknown will cause a man to be receptive to just about any any bit of nonsense that either:
1. "proves" their fear is well founded. (Defend rather than inform)
2. Indicates that others share their fear. (Herd behavior drives those with common fears together)
George Carlin debunked the "gateway" myth by exposing its absurdity in this: "Mother's milk leads to cannabinol, we all know that." Science has debunked this myth in study after study funded by the drug warriors. You will not find the results of these studies in any drug warrior's knowledge base because they refuse to believe anything that does not justify their ridiculous fears.
What you will find, you have found, and cited above, are manipulative statistics that are meant to obscure the relevant and highlight the irrelevant...just like the "gateway" nonsense does.Â
Note: How to Lie with Statistics would be a worth while read if you have a spare afternoon.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "fear of the unknown", except that smoking (or eating) marijuana is probably the biggest unknown one will ever see.
One would not be sure if he/she would just get high, have some sort of vision, just whig out on some psychosis they get, or even all three. Hey, you don't smoke cannabis, do you?
I seriously hope George Carlin is not one of your heroes.
Are you sure of what you will believe with an altered state of mind that marijuana provides?
Statistics can be manipulative. Most of the time they're not, however. They can show a tendency to do something in most cases. I'm not sure I know a scientist who doesn't believe statistics most of the time.
Note: It would be good to know just how often statistics show correct tendencies. But I think we already know.
The way "pot" becomes a "gateway drug" is because it is illegal and people that start smoking it tend to hangout in certain circles. They may be aready high and are more susceptable to enticement into other experimentation.  If they were educated (honestly)about drugs they might be more prepared for that situation.   Pot is certainly not addictive, except perhaps in the sense "that was fun, I want to do that again."
Â
The main problem I have with your article is the same problem I have with all the prohibition type writings.   You tell of all the problems that are or could become real.  Possible accidents, lost labor....whatever.
You don't tell of the costs of having these prohibition policies, which also wreck lives, cost billions to enforce, create a prison industry, create drug gangs and political corruption, etc.
One has to weigh the costs, social and financial and political, between the two policies.
When I listen to your arguements for prohibition I hear the reasons for that stand because of potential harm.  Others feel certain that far,far more damage is done by your stand.
Maybe you're a user of pot, I don't know. Maybe they're already high from previous pot smoking. Maybe they hang out in "circles" because they don't want to get caught 'doing' an illegal drug.
How do you know pot is not addictive? Have you ever done pot more than once?
I don't remember saying the word 'prohibition' once in the article. In fact, I didn't say anything about prohibition. I specifically talk about real problems, albeit some real problems some don't know exist yet.
The cost of any policy can never be worth the cost of a life. Abortion is a prime example. You seem to forget that more damage is done to people that are innocent bystanders to irresponsible acts.
Kevin, you are missing the point. Marijuana should be decriminalized.
According to you and the sources you cite, marijuana may be bad and that may be so. I don't know. I am no expert on pot. I have never tried it nor do I intend to start any time soon. Nevertheless, I CHOSE not to use it. Although completely legal, I also CHOSE not to smoke nicotine and I CHOSE not to drink in excess. Lately I have CHOSEN not to exercise regularly, but that is really bad for my health so I need to CHOSE to exercise regularly again. So it’s all about CHOICES. If you CHOSE something that is bad for you, then you and your LOVED ones will suffer the consequences. Each adult should be able to make his or her own decision because he or she and the loved ones will suffer the consequences.
Just because you or your sources say marijuana is bad it does not mean that it should remain criminal. Let take your criminalization argument to the extreme:  It is commonly known that red meat is bad for your health because it takes longer to digest. Are we going to criminalize eating meat or fast food? Are we going to criminalize or give fines to people for not exercising regularly? How about tobacco? Coffee? Candy? Sugar?
You also point out that when a pot smoker drives it puts you in danger. If a pot smoker kills you in an accident or injures you, that should be the crime regardless if he was smoking pot or not. Otherwise you are criminalizing everybody for the higher chance or higher probability but not for the actual crime. I am pretty sure that we can demonstrate with statistics that driving while angry increases the chances of an accident. So if you are angry, are we going to give you a ticket? A lot of murders are passionate crimes. We can also probably demonstrate with statistics that a man is more likely to kill, injure or harm his spouse if he caught her having a sexual encounter with another man. So do we arrest the man whose spouse cheated on him because there is a higher probability that he will commit murder?Â
Government is not the solutions to our problems. It IS the problem. Decriminalize marijuana and use law enforcement where is needed to go after murderers, rapists, etc… not the people who are doing harm to themselves.
If marijuana is bad, then don’t use it. Teach your kids and grandkids NOT to use it. If there are drug problems with any of your family or friends, help them the same way you would if they were alcoholics or obese, or lazy, etc... Just don’t get the government involved in the lives of others. Live and let live.
I'm sorry, but it seems as if you missed the point entirely. There's a million BAD things you can do, but you should not be criminalized for doing all of them. We know that 'texting' while driving is dangerous, and can increase the statistics of accidents. Criminalizing would be crossing the line, unless someone was actually killed.
Anything one does that puts your loved ones, your parents, friends, neighbors, whomever, in mortal danger from a drug should be criminalized. Operating heavy machinery, driving cars, controlling train switching stations, operating ANY equipment that could kill while under the influence of any drug should be criminalized.
That's why no employer in his right mind would allow you to operate his equipment while under the influence of some drug or alcohol. He leaves himself open for major lawsuits and stiff penalties---and that's not even counting the perp.
If one gets killed in an accident, the killer may not even get a penalty depending upon the circumstances. If he was using pot during the driving, or shortly before the driving, his butt should be nailed to the wall. That hardly ever occurs.
Read your second-to-last paragraph again. Government is NOT the solution to our problems. But if they eliminate or reduce deaths because of certain regulations or criminalizations, (i.e., abortions, deaths from marijuana crazed psychotics, etc...,) more power to them.
You forget the Constitution gives the power to the government to reduce enemies from outside and from WITHIN. We're not talking about someone just being harmful to himself. We're talking about someone being harmful to others. You've got to make a line of dilineation. You evidently haven't made it yet.Â
The problem with some lines of delineation is that once you start making those lines, the government moves those lines closer and closer against us taking away more freedoms. Marijuana should be decriminalized. The individual should make the decision on whether to use it or not and accept the consequences if his acts. If he kills someone under the influence, he is liable. An employer will not want to have drug user operating machinery because the employer does not want to risk the liability. So again, it should be up to the employer to put policies in his own place of business as to how he will operate such business and accept the consequences. If an employee kills someone, both the employee and the employer are liable. If you don’t want your kids to smoke pot, you will do everything in your power to help them to stay away from it. So if the employer thinks that using machinery while under the influence is bad, the employer will do everything in his power including termination of employment to prevent his employees from doing so. Government is not needed in any of these situations and marijuana can still be legal while both the parent and the employer retain the right to operate his household or place of business as he see fits while accepting the liability.
You state that criminalizing texting while driving is crossing the line. Guess what? It is already happening: [link edited for length]. Who crossed the line? As usual, the government. They are setting a new line. The next line to be crossed is to criminalize driving while obese, or criminalize someone who did not have a good night's sleep, or criminalizing talking to the passenger, or criminalizing listening to the radio while driving.
Besides, if decriminalization of marijuana should occur, there are still laws against DWI. But today, whether you will be driving or not, if you smoke pot or are just in mere possession you are a criminal. That’s wrong. The jails are crowded with non-violent users of marijuana who are deprived of their liberty at our expense thus depriving us from our earnings.Â
The Constitution gives the power to the government to reduce the enemies from WITHIN, but who are those enemies? How do we label those enemies? Is the pot smoking an enemy of the state? Or maybe both you and I are enemies of the state. Today, when we go through airport security we are ALL enemies of the state. It seems to me that the enemies of the state today are the politicians in Washington, not just regular citizens like you and me. Those are the real enemies.
With regards to drug laws, coemdian magicians Penn and Teller said it best:
It is both informative and funny. And it even shows a guy smoking pot in front of the US Congress building because the government actually gives him the marijuana at our expense as an experiment. Althought the Penn And Teller series are not scientific, they are very informative and philosophical as well as entertaining with a convincing opinion.
Where are the numbers re. violent crime related to alcohol vs. cannibis? Where are the statistics on substance abuse treatment re. alcohol vs. cannabis? How about a comparison of the number of vehicle accidents caused by drunks vs. potheads
 "Marijuana Much Riskier Than Alcohol" ???
Without such data your article doesn't live up to it's title.
I question much of your evidence and don't embrace your conclusion -- as with your previous article on Bush vs. Obama -- but I didn't write to join the pile-on. Rather, I wanted to thank you for writing here.
As originally conceived, Nolan Chart was meant to be a place for expression of all the variants of public opinion.: A dialogue between all parts of the political spectrum, not just the libertarian one. (It only looks like the latter some times because there are so many libertarians writing vs. so few others.)
I welcome your articles as a reflection of conservative opinion. (One that, I should add, I find more genuinely 'conservative' than, say, the conservatarianism of Ron Paul and his supporters.
Conservatives and libertarians (like myself) share common ground on a number of issues (like those of the Tea Parties), and there is much we can do to work together on them. At the same time, we need a place where we can honestly air and debate our differences. That's what the Chart is for, and you play an important role in it.
That's why, despite my disagreements with your article, I'm giving it a thumb.
It's unfortunate you can't understand the line of dilineation. The line is when people harm or kill others, and they don't even know they're going to do it. You refuse to accept the fact that so many things are unknown about cannabis, and that breathing it is the biggest chance anyone could ever take.
The plunge of marijuana can hand you all types of problems--ones that you never know you could have. The government needs to protect citizens from that danger. With many other things like alcohol, the affects are KNOWN, and people who go over the limit will already know what the penalties are. They are fully capable of not exceeding that limit.
With cannabis that limit is UNKNOWN. It's the government's job to protect its citizens.
Have you ever seen the brain of one who has smoked marijuana for several years. It's not a pretty sight. As can be read in the Declaration. The government is only needed to protect someone's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. They should stay out of the rest. But they better do a darn good job of protecting those 3 rights if we are to remain one nation, indivisible.
Evidently, you don't understand the meaning of the word "riskier". With alcohol, you know exactly what your getting into, knowing how many drinks you've had, what you've been drinking, and what your weight is.
With cannabis, you know nothing. Whether it'll have almost no effect on you, or whether it'll put you in a psychotic state with no remembrance of what you've done for a period of time.
One also is rarely told that when alcohol is blamed for a death, how much cannabis is intermixed with that, and how much effect did the cannabis have over the alcohol?
Get your definitions correct and then get back to me...
Maybe I should be happy that you like to read my columns. Maybe I should be upset that you likely are't reading all my links and you don't know all the correct information. Maybe I should be downright upset that you take none of the rights pointed out in the Declaration.
TRD hit the nail on the head and basically broke the entire argument down and corrected Kevin point by point. The problem with Kevins' argument is he makes a leap from using mairjuana to driving around and operating heavy machinery while stoned. Just like alcohal use, marijuana must be used responsibly.
Kevin's argument is tantamount to arguments against gun ownership because some people will behave irresponsibly and put others at risk. How can I be allowed to own a gun, I might shoot somebody? How can I be allowed to smoke pot, I might get behind the wheel and cause an accident?
I'm curious if Kevin's logic is consistent, does he support prohibition of alcohol for the same reasons? His whole argument about 'not knowing what you are getting into' when you smoke pot, and your inability to monitor your intake is erroneous. Clearly he has an opinion about something he knows nothing about. I've smoked pot many times, and I can tell you from experience that this is simply not true.
Â
I agree with one thing, people should never drive or operate machinery while under the influence of any substance. But that is, of course, a completely different issue. Likewise, people with firearms should not take them out and fire randomly into a crowd, that does not mean I oppose the second amendment.
Thank you for responding to my comment. But your response indicates that perhaps I should reiterate: You made no comparison of the two substances in order to validate the claim, "Marijuana Much Riskier Than Alcohol".
I've heard of people getting drunk and "blacking out", but have never heard of cannabis inducing a "psychotic state with no remembrance of what you've done for a period of time". I have heard of drunks who didn't remember driving home, and they are in my opinion a greater threat to society than any pot smoker ever was.
While you seem to rely heavily on your "links", I believe some of your opposition here is based on personal experience, which is probably more reliable than some of the prohibitionist "information" you point to.
H.G.Wells bemoaned the subversion of science for political goals. It's an all too common practice, being applied to a number of agendas, including the "War on Drugs".
So I respectfully disagree with your position, and urge you to continue exercising your free speech.
Posted By: Don R Starr II
Date: 2010-01-22 06:38:34
When you drive, drive sober, when you drive, pay attention. Use of pot or not is not this issue, it is personal responsibillity, Whether they choose, Alcohol, pot, texting, or what have you, in a free and open society, it is personal decisions and responsibility that are inportant. So, it is not the Marijuana that is the problem, it's the Parents and role models who guide our children and teach them what Good citizenship is. I smoked Medicinal Pot most my life, My children are successful, do not drink or smoke and drive, I have tried to tell them how risky text and drive is, I don't seem to be able to get through to them, So, Should texting be Illegal because there are those who mis-use it? Education, has reduced drunk driving, it is fashionable to have a DD, Education and peer pressure will work on pot and texting too, If making things Illegal works why are our jails so full, and why so many repeat offenders. WE, together have forgotten to teach Citizenship. This is the real problem. IMO Not meant to offend or as propaganda. just a point of view.
Sorry, but you couldn't be more incorrect. You evidently did not get the message. Marijuana CANNOT be used responsibly. Therein lies the basic difference between cannabis and alcohol.
I'm not surprised you've smoked pot many times. Have you told your employer that? Do you ever wonder how they'd react? I think you're on board now...
I appreciate your straightforwardness. Unfortunately, you did not pick up the necessities of my claim. Marijuana IS much riskier than alcohol. Everything about alcohol and its effects have been documented many times over. Body weight, # of drinks, kinds of drinks, starting alcohol blood level, intoxication level--you name it. None of those is known about marijuana. You don't even know the amount that one can overdose on. You have no idea what your brain will look like after several tokes.
How can anybody tell you about occurences that they themselves don't even remember. Or maybe they remember it, but they're too scared to tell you about it.
If you've never smoked pot, then your opininion doesn't really count. (No offense there.) I've never smoked, but it's easy to get info from people who should know.
As I informed someone else, if I was a cop, I'd be much happier with someone who is drunk, than with someone who might be in some sort of psychosis. The former is usual a known quantity. The latter is never really known, and it would be wise to fear for your life.
Never has the word 'prohibition' ever entered into any words offered by my resources who should know what pot can do. Besides, don't we prohibit things all the time, i.e., killing, stealing, larceny, forgery, etc., etc...?
It seems as you've made subversion of science into something..you might have subverted yourself? So even though I respect your ideas, I don't have to agree with them. So do countless employers, and countless others.
If you do partake, have you asked others what THEY think about it? If you do imbibe, have you asked your employer what he thinks about it? I urge you to continue to follow your better judgment.
Get your head on straight. With alcohol, you know your limits. With marijuana, there are no limits. No one knows what they will do if they inhale too much, if they get a weed with a high THC level, if they have some other intoxicant that could have lethal consequences if mixed with cannabis---you name it.
Do you know the exact effects cannabis will always have onm your system?
You know, I've never seen Reefer Madness, and probably never will.
It's amazing that one can get 'outrageous disinformation', from people who know what the likely end result of cannabis would be.
Most of 'us' know better?? Who's 'us'? People who take cannabis regularly? People who find it difficult to get a job, because of what employers know about what cannabis does to the brain after a period of time?
People who might have gone into a psychotic state, but don't even realize it's happening? Thinking you know better than the 'rest' is the first sign.
If you need any help, let me know. You already know my e-mail. Just don't wait too late...     Â
"Us" refers to every responder to your article (what else?).
I'm pretty comfortable with my modest six-figure income, and I don't drink or use drugs, so I guess I won't need any help. But thanks for the offer anyway.
I've checked with most of the responders. 96.3% 'do' pot. I didn't think you would be in a group that got poor info, or maybe no info at all. I may have been wrong...
By the time of your mortal death, it sounds like you'll be crying for help alright. Just remember, it will probably will be too late then...
Kevin, I suggest you check out the  following informative site: www.drugpolicy.org They present marijuana facts instead of agenda-driven,government funded junk science! Â
Sorry, Dan. I checked out [drugpolicy.org]. They present no facts. Only that medical marijuana has been OK'd to sniff in ~14 states. No info on TLVs. No info on overdose amounts. No info on what happens to the brain after 5 years on the stuff. No info on when a person hits the 'psychosis' stage.
"With cannabis, you know nothing. Whether it'll have almost no effect on you, or whether it'll put you in a psychotic state with no remembrance of what you've done for a period of time."
"None of those is known about marijuana. You don't even know the amount that one can overdose on. You have no idea what your brain will look like after several tokes"
"It's amazing that one can get 'outrageous disinformation', from people who know what the likely end result of cannabis would be."
So do we know, or not know?
It's impossible to build a firm position on self-contradiction. So I'll just move on, and leave you to dig yourself out of the little hole you've made.
Maybe I was initially wrong about your rationality during discussions or 'arguments'. Let me make sure you're straight on some things even though this has been rehashed before.
We know details about alcohol, and can see documented proof anywhere you look. But about marijuana, there is so much we don't know. About all we know for sure is that afer years of use, the brain is almost always a total mess of synapses. People group alcohol and marijuana togethert all the time. Two different chemicals, two different physical states, two different affects on a human body.
How you'll wind up, what you'll do, and what you remember yourself doing is not known either. None of the other items I mentioned before, do we know about marijuana. The only thing predictable about pot, is its unpredictability. We know it's unpredictable, mainly because every person is different and reacts differently to stimuli with pot.
The only contradiction there is, is the realization that someone who is as intelligent as you cannot believe in an afterlife.
You can 'move on' to anywhere you wish. You just need to figure out exactly where you're going, and how fast you're going to get there...
You want them (drugpolicy.org) to offer proof of negatives! Marijuana use has never been proven to  convert formerly sane people into psychotics!  There has never been a proven overdose death documented with marijuana in all of recorded history! On the other hand,ten times as many people die from alcohol related deaths than all illegal drugs combined! Alcohol abusers can turn violent or even black out and be capable of almost any insane act! An average of 100,000 people die every year from prescription drug related deaths! SSRI anti-depressant possible side-effects include worsening depression,thoughts of suicide and violent behavior!  But obviously your mind is made up and I won't waste any more of my valuable time confusing you with facts!
They were the one giving negatives. They haven't offered any proof of what they said. I never said that marijuana always causes formerly sane people to be psychotic. I said it CAN!
Do you know exactly how many of those people who die on the road from alcohol related deaths haven't taken some recent 'tokes'? Do you know how many of those were not influenced by the marijuana, despite having been drinking as well? I thought not.
Remember what I said. Marijuana is RISKIER than other drugs like alcohol. Alcohol is a known quantity, with known effects at a particular blood alcohol level. There is nothing 'known' about possilbe marijuana effects.
Those are the facts. My mind being made up has nothing to do with your opinion.
So many fallacies in your post. So lets start from the top:
RE: The AMA study on lung effects- they did not reverse themselves as you (and Faux news) claim. They study of more then 5000 adults over a period of 20 years, found casual cannabis smokers to have an increase in lung functioning, moderate users to have no effect, and did not have enough heavy smokers over the time frame to draw a meaningful conclusion. Of course- this would also seem to imply that very, very few cannabis users remain heavy smokers throughout their lifetime.
RE: "What you only do to yourself without harm to others, is the biggest fallacy that exists." where you then jump to the conclusion of stoned drivers killing innocents…
Well- let's look at the facts. A recent study has found that states that institute medical marijuana laws see a substantial (16% I think) drop in fatal car accidents. The NTSB as well as numerous foreign governments have done numerous studies on marijuana and driving- which have found few effects, and less of a negative effect then being at half of the legal BAL. Despite the millions of users- prescription drugs, exhaustion, cellphones, etc are all responsible for more accidents then cannabis. Indeed- there are more accidents caused by "legally sober, ie: under .08BAL) then there are for cannabis.
And I must ask- how in the world can you then go on to condone alcohol, and downplay it's negative impacts? For alcohol you seem to believe that the user has the right to ingest this substance and can and should be trusted to be responsible. Your comments are highly hypocritical and the exact opposite of your statements on cannabis. (Just read through your article and substitute cannabis for alcohol and vice versa and you see how ridiculous you sound.
Maybe you should try asking police, EMT's, and emergency room doctors their experiences with alcohol vs marijuana (and which they most have to deal with / would rather have to deal with). I guarantee you- it will be quite enlightening.
The figures on hospital admissions are misleading at best. They are NOT admissions due to cannabis use- but hospital admissions where cannabis (which is detectable for 2+weeks) are found in the tox screens. Again- ask any ER doctor or nurse and they will tell you alcohol is the most commonly seen drug issue. Problems directly related to cannabis are rare at best.
The gateway drug theory is a relic of the past- and no one in the drug treatment world accepts it. Truth be told- Alcohol and tobacco are the drugs that 99.9% start with. The only shred of truth in the gateway drug theory is this: once someone tries an illicit and demonized drug such as cannabis- they realize they have been lied to about its dangers and harms, are hence may be more likely to consider the same is true of other illicit substances. This is more of a reason to legalize then continue failed prohibition.
And the simple fact is cannabis is the most widely used illegal drug in the world. And yet the vast majority of users don't use other illegal drugs. Of course- most users of illegal drugs have likely used alcohol and marijuana, ad often tobacco.
RE: Statistics regarding under 18year olds admitted for drug treatment- these numbers are meaningless. These are not people checking themselves in because they have a problem- their parents are sending them to rehab because their kids smoke the "demon marijuana". Likewise statistics on marijuana treatment in general- we increasingly live in a world where people can avoid criminal prosecution for simple possession by entering drug treatment. This does not mean they are addicted or have a problem.
As to the claims of drug harm- maybe you should research the report prepared for parliament done this past year by the UK Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs " Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis" where they ranked drugs on numerous criteria split between harm to the individual and harm to society. Alcohol, cocaine/crack cocaine, methamphetamine, tobacco, and heroin took top honors. Cannabis was at number 8, MDMA and LSD were at #17 & 18 respectively. So yes- cannabis is more harmful then LSD- but that ignores the fact LSD is one of the safest drugs ever created.
RE: cannabis and psychosis. Again another controversial study being touted by Faux News. There remains no hard evidence of cannabis causing psychosis in any form, (and actually some pretty solid evidence to the contrary). A major problem is that millions essentially use cannabis to self-medicate. While we may be able to say that cannabis users are more likely then the general population to develop psychosis, there is currently no evidence to suggest cannabis is the cause. Indeed, there is similar data with psychosis, depression, and anxiety for any number of substances- including alcohol and tobacco. But no one tries to claim these substances are the cause. This also applies to your claims about cannabis use and depresion- just a couple of paragraphs down.
As to the effects of legalization. Again, I challenge your data. The most recent studies in the Netherlands show that while they have a slight increase in overall cannabis use- usage levels are much lower then in the US or the rest of europe, and not only does it not lead to harder drug use, but seems to reduce it.
And lets look at Portugal, which legalized possession of all drugs, and has seen astounding drops in use of all drugs across the board, as well as reduction in diseases spread by IV drug use and general drops in crime.
Or look at the states that have legalized medical marijuana or have essentially decrimialized personal possession. They do not see a rash of addiction, increased use among youth, or increases in crime or other social ills. Indeed, the contrary seems to be true.
And your story on Vincente Fox and drug decriminilization is quite old (2006). He went ahead and did it finally in 2009.
Your final four paragraphs are so outlandishly "down the rabbit hole" I don't even know where to start…
So first- you start off claiming people are responsible enough to safely use alcohol, though somehow you feel they aren't responsible enough for cannabis. You then seem to cling to the belief that only someone over the legal limit is a danger to themselves or others while driving- while the facts say something completely different.
You then say a cannabis user doesn't know their tolerance? Excuse me. We most certainly do. You say there are no legal limits of detectability. This may be true in the sense of current law- but just look at laws or proposals for laws in the UK, Australia, Colorado, Washington state…It can be set if the legislature so chooses, and it can be tested for. (And yes- it presents the same problems as setting a legal BAL). Such limits are little more then a legally defensible standard that are harder to challenge then a police officers belief that one is intoxicated.
As to potency- most cannabis users have a pretty good idea of the potency of cannabis they have access to. And if it were legalized- we would be able to have laboratory testing- just like many of the medical marijuana dispensaries in the US use, labeling the cannabis just like alcohol is.
As to psychotic- in over 40 years of being around cannabis users I have never seen, nor heard of one becoming psychotic. (though I have seen many belligerent or blacked out drunks.)
And finally your claim that drinking and smoking together is "quite common"- would you care to present some evidence for this claim. As I already stated- recent studies show a huge decrease in driving under the influence in states with medical marijuana laws, and millions use cannabis in place of, or to limit, their alcohol consumption.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
