Marijuana is not the safe drug many believe it to be. by Kevin Roeten
(conservative)
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
So many say the decriminalization of marijuana is necessary, and the war on drugs is a failure which hasn't achieved anything. The impression that government policy on cannabis was ignorant and irrational, gave rise to 14 states allowing sick people access to marijuana. The idea caught on in California, as well as Alaska, Maine, Michigan, and Montana. In 2009, approximately 75% of Americans thought doctors should be able to prescribe cannabis. But new evidence changed things. Even Obama made his position crystal clear by declaring cannabis use "entirely appropriate", and for physicians to prescribe cannabis if needed.
It turns out marijuana is much more dangerous than once thought. Exacerbating that problem human nature, if not properly directed, will always go with the path of least resistance. If no laws exist to keep one from using drugs, then more and more drugs will be used. To continue to get the same high, more and more drug intake must occur. The fallacy exists that victimless self-destructive behavior is enough punishment by itself, and pot should not be regulated. Funny how that doesn't seem to wash with spouses, family, friends, relatives, neighbors, fellow workers, car drivers, bus drivers, train engineers, airplane pilots...you name it.
Beware. Do not, I repeat, do not continue reading this column if you are a pot-head; tend to get emotionally disturbed at items you read but don't like; or have smoked cannabis very, very recently.
The marijuana smoked today (also known as skunk, MaryJane, weed, AK-47, White Widow, Armageddon, etc., etc...) is significantly stronger than 30 years ago, when it was all the rage on college campuses.
The active ingredient tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in marijuana seized in 2006, averaged 8.5%. Back in the 80's it was only 2-3%. How much THC is in cannabis now? Worse yet, how much will be in cannabis 10 years from now? The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime revealed even though the average THC was 8.5% in 2006, the THC content ofpresent-day marijuana can get to 20-30%.
In a stinging Marijuana use and car crash injury report out of New Zealand, this population-based study suggests habitual marijuana use is connected with a 10x increase in risk of car crash injury. In a recent report entitled "Epedimiology of Alcohol and Other Drug Use Among Motor Vehicle Crash Victims Admitted to a Trauma Center", 19% of crash victims under 18 tested positive for marijuana. Realizing alcohol was not technically considered a drug, the Centers for Disease Control(CDC, 12/06) reported "...Marijuana has been the most common drug found in such studies of fatally injured drivers in North America...".
It shows a lack of scientific expertise to compare alcohol to marijuana. Alcohol is not considered a drug, and its physical affects can be determined from a common chart calculating body weight, amount eaten, and % alcohol in the drink. It's even been given an illegal amount in the bloodstream (0.08%) to be legally drunk in most states. But cannabis is a mind-altering drug, can vary in THC content wildly without given knowledge, and effects the mind especially at higher concentrations of THC--which is never known in the first place.
Medical professional find it troubling that parents who deliver a "don't smoke cigarettes" mantra to their children from infancy do not realize the toxic properties of carcinogens in marijuana. New Zealand researchers found that smoking one joint is equivalent to 20 cigarettes in terms of lung cancer. Study results appear in the European Respiratory Journal (1/08) [[link edited for length]].
Interestingly, in 1975 in Alaska you could own marijuana for personal home consumption. After a 1988 University of Alaska survey showed that state's teenagers began using pot at twice the national average for their age group,Alaska residents decided to recriminalize the possession of marijuana in 1990. Many forget Needle Park(Switzerland) which opened in 1986. Here, drug addicts could purchase drugs and inject heroin without police intervention. But a rapid decline in the neighborhood around Needle Park, and increased crime and violence forced authorities to close it in 1992.
With the typical number of marijuana users driving at any particular time, with the increased amount of the active ingredient (THC) in marijuana now and continuously increasing, and the likelihood of marijuana users graduating to something stronger, one has to ask themselves if driving down the road is unusually hazardous to your heath.
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)can be produced synthetically if needed. Then, one would know the exact concentration. But synthetic THC's not legal in most situations. One has to wonder why that's the case.
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.
 If the reefer madness hysteria isn't absurd enough, the claim that alcohol isn't a drug is the height of absurdity! My father was a binge drinking alcoholic, addicted to that dangerous, debilitating chemical drug all of his adult life! He ruined his marriage when I was a child (he beat my mom when drunk), alienated his family and became a fugitive over a decade ago after violating probation! He was on probation for drunk driving, resisting arrest and assaulting an officer! He died in Florida several years back of pneumonia because he turned to drink instead of seeing a doctor! I have never met or even heard of a pothead doing such things! I've met drunks who swore they weren't drunk but I've never met a pothead who swore he wasn't high! I've met only one pothead with serious mental problems but he had mental problems before he ever tried pot! And he never acted deranged when he was high! As a libertarian and former pothead who isn't gullible enough to believe government propaganda and agenda driven junk science, I can plainly see through the official disinformation! Personal experience, observation and research of the facts tells me that marijuana is a medicinal herb that is clearly the most innocuous mood-altering substance on the planet! On the other hand, alcohol is a chemical drug that drives some people to violence, madness and addiction! And if   smoking marijuana is supposedly extremely dangerous to one's health, explain why Willie Nelson or Tommy Chong didn't drop dead years ago!
One knows almost exactly when one has too much alcohol. That concentration is .08% alcohol in the bloodstream. Does one know anything when he overdoses on marijuana? Does he know what he'll do? Does he know if he'll go into a psychosis, and forget the last 8 hours ever happening?
Do they let pot-heads drive heavy equipment, buses, planes, you name it---?   I wonder why.
Hey, did anybody ever check the condition of Willie Nelson's or Tommy Chong's brain after death? Let me know if they do. Determination of what the brain looks like after 5 years of smoking is eye opening at the least.
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2010-04-25 10:33:12
I can appreciate your concern on this matter, but can also assure that it is misplaced and due to ignorance born not of common sense but of buying into the status quo, likely out of a misinformed religious or 'conservative' bias.Â
Addressing your response to Dan first, you are incorrect. .08% blood alcohol concentration has nothing to do with one having 'too much' alcohol, it's an arbitrary number assigned by the authorities. Some people have had too much at lower concentrations, and some can perfom just fine at much higher concentrations.Â
"Overdosing" on cannabis? No such thing - the lethal dose is so high as to be impossible to reach, and history & common experience has shown that those who over-consume either go to sleep or become over-cautious to compensate for their impairment. Not the same with alcohol. And if you can find me one verifiable report of anyone ever going into a cannabis-induced psychosis, I'd love to see the references on it, especially as these studied are FREQUENTLY debated in the scientific community and contradicted often.
Do they let 'pot-heads' drive heavy equipment, buses, planes? You'd likely be surprised how many professionals in just these positions use cannabis on a casual basis, and how easy the 'drug' tests for the positions are to circumvent. Cannabis users are not just typically dirty & unsuccessful people.
Regarding your beloved statistics on cannabis and various accidents, this is a complete misnomer as these tests only show use within the metabolization period after use, which can be several weeks or a month. It has nothing to do with impairment at the time.
And your reference to higher THC concentrations is honestly laughable. Common sense and verifiable observation shows that cannabis users are remarkably adept at self-regulation. Getting too 'high' simply is not pleasant most often. Higher concentrations mean the desired level is reached sooner, at which point they will stop consuming. This also means that the action harms associated with use (inhalation of combusting material) are MINIMIZED, means higher THC concentrations make safer cannabis. This is also one of the problems with the synthetic THC you tout. Different levels are needed for different people, and it's not easy to know what it needed. Synthetic THC delivered in pill form cannot be self-regulated, leading to not being able to stop when enough has been used, as the effects are not as immediate as when self-administering via smoke or vapor.
By the way, the gateway theory has been thoroughly debunked. Correlation does not prove causation, and prohibition is a driving factor here as this puts soft drug users in constant access with people also providing hard drugs. The drug policy of separation in the netherlands has shown itself very effective at minimizing this.
It's simply a proven fact that outright prohibition, of anything, does not work. If you're worried about this issue, promote legalization and regulation, which will take profits out of the hands of criminals and dealers, impose safety controls and restrictions on who can buy, free up much needed law enforcement focus and resources, and generally make this whole issue better for everyone. Then we can focus on education and treatment, which have shown to be much more effective than prohitibition and incarceration.Â
Another documented fact that you may want to look into is that prohibition, severity of legal treatment, and local laws restricting use do NOT affect usage rates. Some areas with stricter laws have significantly higher rates of consumption than areas with less severe penalties. It just doesn't work, and is HIGH time to introduce a bit of common sense to this issue.
I am surprised by your 'assumptions' that I am either a misinformed religious person or biased conservative. Despite your preconceived prejudices, I'll answer as many questions that I can.
0.08% blood alcohol concentration is not arbitrary. It is the number almost all people have with too much alcohol in the bloodstream for proper reaction time. There's bound to be an exception to the rule somewhere.
Note I said "overdosing', not 'lethal' dose. And how do you know what people do when they overdose? If you look closely at police and doctors' reports you can find psychoses indicated quite frequently. But you haven't looked, have you?
Just how many professionals use cannabis on a casual basis? Do they ever take drug tests? Who said they were typically dirty and unsuccessful?
Exactly how long is that metabolization period anyway? Can it vary from individual to individual? How do you measure it when their impairment is at an unacceptable level?
I'm afraid common sense is the last thing that shows that cannabis users are good at self-regulation. Higher THC levels do NOT mean users will stop consuming. This is especially true if they have no idea what the THC level actually is.
Did I mention the Gateway theory? The Netherlands are the last ones who've shown any effectiveness. I think prohibition of several things have worked quite nicely. Take atomic explosives for example. If you want people driving, flying, and using heavy machinery using cannabis, that's your issues and your family's. You do have children, right?
Just let me know if you need any assistance in getting rid of weed. I'll be more than happy to help out.
The car crash report was also absurd. Marijuana can stay in your system for up to 4 Months if you were a habitual smoker.Â
The system we have now puts a highly profitable economic sector under the control of gangs and drug cartels. And makes citizens who are otherwise good productive members of society into criminals in the eyes of the law. it costs about 40,000 a year per person to keep them in prison, and removes them from any productive activity. Wouldn't it be better to have them working and paying taxes smoking a substance that is much safer and 3x less addictive then alcohol?
Sorry to rain on your parade. The heavy use of cannabis is 20x more harmful than cigarettes. You did read that link, didn't you?
I didn't make up the car crash report either. You can tell by reading it. You did read it, right?
Unfortunately, your link did not come up. Why am I not surprised?
I guess I'm not convinced that people who put others at risk of death from car injury are considered to be 'good productive members of society'.
We know what blood-achohol level we have to stay under for safe operation of any vehicle. We have NO idea what the 'safe' level of marijuana is. I guess if you're addicted to alcohol, you DON'T drink it!
And why wouldn't a person who loves to smoke marijuana work and pay taxes if he didn't smoke marijuana? Please figure that out for me...
Elliot Ness may of had good intentions, but we all know the kind of road that led to; Al Capone, innocent Americans turned into criminals over a health issue that should require medical treatment rather then incarceration, blackmarket production of alcohol in some cases created toxic batches due to improper regulation and greed, and also massive corruption with law enforcement considering the increase of profitability from it's illegal status. Sadly, prohibition has and will continue to destroy more lives and families then the actual use of any of these subjectively harmful substance -- this article explains it quite brilliantly.
I'm thankful that it appears the majority of Americans are becoming wiser to the hyperbolic, irrational, and arrogant rhetoric of the Prohibitionists. Considering more drug laws are becoming reformed across this country, these control freaks' dream of ridding marijuana, or any substance humankind desires rightly or wrongly, will inevitably be a pipe dream. Humanity has a natural right to make their own choices, unless that choice directly harms another, in which we already have laws for that (murder, robbery, rape, etc).
It's unfortunate you can't see the forest through the trees. Despite a lot of conjecture, and somehow mixing alcohol into the problem, I wonder if you smoke marijuana yourself.
What basis do you have saying that marijuana is illegal from the reasons you list? As you say, we have thousands of years of marijuana use under our belts, and despite many people enjoying the heck out of it, do we have any feel for how many have actually overdosed, how many have done harm to themselves, or how many have killed or maimed others out on the road because they did not know or care what they were doing?
Humanity doesn't have the natural right to harm others or itself. Choices that will do that include smoking marijuana. Maybe not every single time, but it happens more times than you can imagine.
It seems like the 'choices' you have listed includes choices that are a result of smoking marijuana.
It's very unfortunate people like you still exist...
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2010-04-27 21:19:31
Hello Kevin, thanks for your responses. First off, before negatively mentioning any link someone has posted here, you may want to actually copy the URL address in your browser and search on it manually in your address bar. There are appears to be some odd embedding on Nolan Chart that kills some posted links.
I've addressed most of your main points I could find below, if I've missed anything else you'd like me to address, just let me know and I'll try to do so in a timely fashion as I can check the site:
1) “One knows almost exactly when one has too much alcohol. That concentration is .08% alcohol in the bloodstream...0.08% blood alcohol concentration is not arbitrary. It is the number almost all people have with too much alcohol in the bloodstream for proper reaction time. There's bound to be an exception to the rule somewhere...”
You are correct that there are (plenty) of exceptions to the rule, but incorrect about the arbitrary nature of .08% BAC. If you review the wikipedia article, among others, on Blood Alcohol Concentration, you can see that legal limits for motor vehicle operation globally vary widely, and the Minnesota House of Representatives has a useful (old) policy brief at [link edited for length] referencing beginning of impaired divided attention around .02% BAC and tracking performance, psychomotor skills, visual functions, reaction time around .05%, and impaired driving (road or simulated) as low as .03%.
2) “How do you measure it when their impairment is at an unacceptable level?”
The same way you do so honestly with alcohol – field sobriety tests that accurately gauge one's ability or lack thereof to perform required actions for the task at hand. Blood or urine levels of alcohol or THC metabolites are arbitrary and honestly unfair as there are much more accurate ways to verify actual impairment.
3) “Do they let pot-heads drive heavy equipment, buses, planes, you name it---?...Just how many professionals use cannabis on a casual basis? Do they ever take drug tests? ”
Of course they do (This is where you implied that potheads are 'dirty or unsuccessful' in my view), if they aren't aware that the “pot-head” is in fact a cannabis user and said user is responsible in their use. As long as someone does a job well, what they do in their own time affects pretty much nothing else. Unfortunately, given the social and legal stigmas surrounding this topics, it's hard to get a fair guess at how many professionals use cannabis, but with federal statistics indicating that roughly 6.8% of americans (20.5 million) use cannabis in an average year since 1995, it's a fair guess that a good many are in positions that required a drug test, which are generally notoriously unreliable and easy to circumvent with a little research.
4) “Exactly how long is that metabolization period anyway? Can it vary from individual to individual?”
It absolutely does, and can be anywhere up to 90 days depending on body fat, consumption levels, and other aspects. This has nothing to do with impairment, though, as the resulting metabolites are not psychoactive.
5) “I'm afraid common sense is the last thing that shows that cannabis users are good at self-regulation. Higher THC levels do NOT mean users will stop consuming. This is especially true if they have no idea what the THC level actually is.”
That's just...silly? As mentioned (and common knowledge for anyone with personal experience on the topic), being too high is not fun. You definitely won't want to take anymore (see cop who thought he was dying: [link edited for length] – *also see this in reference to your question on marijuana overdose: “Note I said "overdosing', not 'lethal' dose. And how do you know what people do when they overdose?”), and higher THC levels DEFINITELY mean you'll stop consuming, in fairly short order, as THC and other components cross the blood-brain barrier within minutes, if not seconds - depending on method of intake; ingestion/digestion is much slower.
6) “Did I mention the Gateway theory?”
Well...yeah, here: “With the typical number of marijuana users driving at any particular time, with the increased amount of the active ingredient (THC) in marijuana now and continuously increasing, and the likelihood of marijuana users graduating to something stronger, one has to ask themselves if driving down the road is unusually hazardous to your heath.”
Which brings me to U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DOT HS 808 078 NOVEMBER 1993, MARIJUANA AND ACTUAL DRIVING PERFORMANCE - EFFECTS OF THC ON DRIVING PERFORMANCE (can read in whole at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/dot78_1c.htm): “Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate where they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small...Of the many psychotropic drugs, licit and illicit, that are available and used by people who subsequently drive, marijuana may well be among the least harmful.”
And no, I don't have children, but I agree that people under the influence of any mind-altering substance should be responsible in their actions and not perform activities requiring full attention. Hence, cannabis should be legalized and regulated and I believe that ANYONE in ANY professional position you mention (driving, flying, and using heavy machinery) should ALWAYS have to take a field sobriety test first, for impairment by any substance, legal or not. That's just common sense.
7) “The Netherlands are the last ones who've shown any effectiveness.”
Wow. That's just...incredibly wrong. If you want more specific breakdowns by various demographics, I'll get them, but you can review the UN's World Drug Report for 2009 at [link edited for length] (and other years by changing the year shown in the URL), and checking the Consumption section in their statistical annex shows the US, despite it's stricted policies, averaging about two-and-a-half times higher on their percentage of population aged 15-64 using cannabis in an average year. Go drug war, huh?
And thanks, but I don't have any weed to get rid of. :)
8) “The heavy use of cannabis is 20x more harmful than cigarettes”
Wrong again. There appear to be protective effects built into cannabis to offset any cancer risk associated with any of the carcinogenic substances in the plant: “While two-pack-a-day or more cigarette smokers were found to have a 20-fold increase in lung cancer risk, no elevation in risk was seen for even the very heaviest marijuana smokers...But people who smoked more marijuana were not at increased risk compared with people who smoked less and people who didn’t smoke at all.” ([link edited for length]) and you can also review the US government's 1999 study “Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base” at [link edited for length]. The basic summary is that cannabis is well within the harm range allowed for any other medicine, and that there was presently no proof of any causal relationship to cancer. This is a horse that's been beaten many times, and due to the differences between cannabis and tobacco, as well as methods and amounts of consumption, any study suggesting such a relationship is swiftly dis-proven.
9) “What basis do you have saying that marijuana is illegal from the reasons you list?”
If you really want to know, I'd suggest reading The Emperor Wears No Clothes ([link edited for length]) by the late Jack Herer, or doing some simple research.
10) “It's very unfortunate people like you still exist...”
Nasty. Just nasty and unpleasant. We don't dispute your right to exist, and most of the statements I've seen by others here disputing the statements you've made show some actual experience, enlightenment, and awareness. You may want to more directly educate yourself on some of these issues and find a better white whale to slay as there are many more harmful (legal, even!) substances and current events out there.
Let me know if there's any other questions I can try to answer for you or points you'd like to dispute, and be well although I know you won't wish me the same based on your response in #10.
Kevin, i did read your posted links. the problem is these studies alone are not enough to take an informed stance on marijuana prohibition.
The study that suspects marijuana to be 20x more harmful then cigarettes involved 79 people. The study i posted involved 2240 people. You should try that link again works fine for me...
Let me clarify, I never claimed that you made the car crash report up. and i reviewed it for a second time. out of the 571 people involved 32 of them had smoked within 3 hours of the accident, and could of been impaired. The remaining "Habitual" smokers could have tested positive for marijuana for up to 4 months after smoking. Marijuana does not have long term affects on motor-skills.Â
Here are some links that will help you take a more informed stance.Â
While I appreciate your attitude, there are some things that rub someone totally wrong.
1) the 0.08% BAC is not arbitrary; some statesv have decided that they deem the body unfit to perform at that level; there's nothing arbitrary about that at all
2) THC metabolites could or could not render a person impaired; you have no way of knowing
3) a person who smokes cannabis may or may not be responsible with its use; he has no idea where his limit might be at, or what THC level might send him over the edge; too bad for those responsible for his safe usage of such equipment iif he does
4) any THC could or could not be psychoactive; the user has no way of knowing when, or if, that'll happen; impairment is ALWAYS an option
(5) Look back again. You did say 'lethal' dose in paragraph 3. Higher THC levels definitely mean you probably WON"T stop consuming. It's different with everyone. How do you know when you'll stop consuming when you don't even know what THC levels you ARE consuming? How do you know WHAT peolple will do when they overdose? Ever saw it?
6) Bottom line--No, you didn't mention the Gateway Theory. But it does have some interesting aspects to it. And THC's influence on driving afffects seem relatively small--that you've seen. Have you've seen the affects all cannabis users have? Did you read what you just said? Anyone in the said professsions should have to take a field sobriety test--but they don't. Probably because no one is aware that they have been smoking before.
7) Do the Netherlands ever have somone take a field sobriety test? How do they know if someone they kill or maim is under the influence? My entire grandfather's side of the family is from the Netherlands. Have you ever been there?
8) I'm afraid you just have no idea if cannabis has ANY offsetting effects of cannabis. You never answered the question as to why cannabis has been found to have so many carcinogenic chaemicals that cigarettes don't have.
9) I like the way you kind of 'made-up'some evidence there. A- for your effort.
10) Why do I get the impression that there is reems of information you won't believe now, but some you will believe if it agrees with the 'legalization' stance? How do I know for a fact that what you're saying has not been influenced by some past joint? Worse yet, how do you?
Kevin, Just one more post i would like to make, then i will shut my mouth and go back to reading. because there are many people commenting here who have much more patience then i.Â
Being a college student here in the US i come into contact with marijuana on a regular bases. Anyone who has seen high THC content marijuana and low THC content marijuana can tell the difference. It is very easy to dose correctly.
I have been riding in vehicles with drivers under the influence of marijuana many times during my young adult life. To claim i have never witnessed any impairment to their driving abilities would not be true, because i have. But it is not due to loss of motor-control. It is due to lack of concentration, distractions while driving. Any good driver knows distractions cause accidents. if you are a responsible driver you would take this into account and be extra careful when driving under the influence. (I am not endorsing driving under the influence of marijuana but form my experience, compared to other substances, it is much less harmful.)
You clearly have very little experience with the drug. If you did you would know there is no such thing as a "marijuana over-dose" you can become higher then your comfort level allows for but to call that over-dosing is ridiculous. If it happens the solution is simple stop smoking.
I encourage you to get out there and do some direct observation, field research! But beware of the secondhand smoke, it may cause psychosis!Â
I appreciate your user friendly posts even though you have some major falsehoods in your stories.
I went to college 30 years ago, but then campuses were rife with smoking marijuana. Almost every time you went down the hall of a dorm, you could smell the marijuana that people were undoubted smoking in their room. THC content was undoubtedly 2-3% back then, but has undoubtedly ramped upward with better refining.
I've been to parties and was offered marijuana, which I politely refused. I played soccer with several players who were high half the time. One even used the formula  [J+1=G] all the time (it stood for joints plus one equals the number of goals he would score in the next soccer game).
He was (African) Libyan and was quite good at soccer. Unfortunately his formula didn't work out all the time. I clearly have much more observational experience than you.
You might be able to tell the difference between low THC content and high, but you never know the exact level in [ppm] either way. And if you've been smoking for awhile, you likely wouldn't know the difference between high and low THC content anyway.
You have ben extremely 'lucky' in cars lately. That will likely not continue, and I fear for you and the people you will kill or maim in a future collision.
I didn't say 'loss' of motor control. I said 'impairment'. Actually, you have no idea what kind of impairment has taken place. Distractions are always a major cause of accidents. Smoking marijuana before driving is one of the biggest distractions I know of.
I guess I never heard of a case where secondhand cigarette smoke caused a psychosis. I can tell you that nobody in their right mind would allow you to drive for them after having smoked marijuana.
1) Campuses these days are no different. All that higher THC content really means is you have to inhale less smoke to achieve the effects you did 30 years ago, thus decreasing the amount of carcinogens inhaled.Â
2) The degree to which [ppm] in THC differs is very small. You don't need to know the exact [ppm] to dose accurately. If there are a lot of White THC crystals content is higher.Â
3) NNS had a good point there are much worse Legal drugs.
These days marijuana is seen as a relatively harmless substance. Â
JWH-018 for instance. a research chemical with similar effects as THC but 5x stronger.Â
Or Salvia identified as the second most powerful hallucinogen next to DMT. Â
Or 2C-E another hallucinogen with effects similar to MDMA and LSD25.
ALL OF WHICH ARE LEGAL ANDÂ AVAILABLEÂ FOR PURCHASE ONLINE TO BE SHIPPED TO YOUR DOORSTEP
DJ hit the nail on the head a few posts up for the real reasons why Marijuana is still illegal!
Fallacy #1): You likely don't know this, but THC has no smell--especially at 30 ppm, which is 10x the amount that it was back in the 70's. Fact is, you don't inhale less. Same amount of carcinogens (significantly more than cigarettes) will invade your body.
Fallacy #2): Back in the 70's, the THC content was 2-3 ppm. Now it can be as high as 30ppm. Maybe more. That a 10x increase. That's not a small increase in THC by a longshot.
Fallacy #3): There might be legal drugs that have a very strong hallucinogenic affect. Too much about cannabis is unknown. At what THC content will someone begin to hallucinate? At what concentration will be considered an overdose? Unacceptable? Why are stronger drugs considered legal with a prescription?
A few people still believe that cannabis is a harmless drug. Hopefully few will get killed before they change their minds.
Where is JWH-018 used? Is it legal?
Saliva the 2nd most powerful hallucinogen compared to dimethyl thallate? Extremely doubtful. If that were the case, I'd be hallucinating right now.
What exactly is 2C-E or MDNA used for, anyway?
I'm afraid DJ is very good at disseminating false or once-posted info that makes legalization palatable.
I would expect you to believe those 'made-up' reasons too...
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2010-04-29 23:25:43
“Remember to have a nice day!”
Thanks :) Trying, but a lot of stress lately. Closing on my first home tomorrow and getting ready to move, and things have been ridiculous at work the last month with all sorts of system issues and orders not getting worked as a result. ANYWAY...sorry.
Your response to #1 – we'll have to agree to disagree. Your statement that 'some statesv (sic) have decided that they deem the body unfit...' as well as many people “who can't hold their liquor” becoming highly impaired at lower concentrations and many functioning fine at much more...extreme...levels will stick in my mind, but regardless, it's not our focus, so I'll let you have that one as an average basis. ;)
#2 – actually I can, there's all sorts of studies and documentation. This is one reason I'm confused by you saying we can know so little about this topic. Granted, US laws impede research, but we know quite a lot. THC (pschoactive) metabolizes primarily into 11-OH-THC (psychoactive). This breaks down to 11-Nor-9-carboxy-THC (non-psychoactive) and a host of other non-psychoactive metabolites. This interplay is what is mainly looked at in blood serum tests to determine likely time passed since last use. Lower or non-existent 11-OH-THC levels mean use wasn't in the last 3-4 days, likely, and according to most available research, most apparent psychoactive effects have passed within 4 hours, with a maximum of about 24 hours depending on potency, means of intake, and other factors ([link edited for length] 'Duration of Effects' and others).
#3 – just like with any other substances, including those allowed into legal circulation by such wonderful groups as the FDA, which happen to have much worse track records as far as safety and adverse effects. Again, one who consumes finds their limit in fairly short order (aside from cases of inexperienced people making brownies and eating too much before onsets of effect, or related situations), and the result is cessation. Over the edge? Please find me a reference to cannabis driving someone over the edge, as we have all sorts of information and statistics of other substances, including many legal, being directly identified as the cause of various maladies, but I'm not aware of many, if any, directly attributing related cases to cannabis – and I will almost guarantee you outright you will find many fewer instances, if so. And please don't refer back to your automobile study here, as we've discussed and you can verify from previous mention of metabolization and drug testing, the presence of THC by-products has very little correlation to actual intoxication.
#4 – well...if you're talking about THC-delta-9, it's all psychoactive. So is it's main metabolite, but not for long. Unless it's an actual hemp variety with VERY little THC, it's likely psychoactive, so 'impairment' if we should call it that is almost always assured if one has a quality supply and is consuming with the intent of becoming intoxicated.
#5 – you are correct as to what I said, I misunderstood your reference to overdose as the DEA's former chief administrative law judge Francis Young stated “Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man” in his ruling to reschedule the substance ([link edited for length]). Other than the supposed suggestion that marijuana can somehow induce crazy drug-fueled orgies, psychoses, and other horrible things a-la Reefer Madness – which we see almost no evidence for (especially in light of the increase in cannabis use since the 60s/70s, counterbalanced by a decrease of psychic disturbances) – consuming too much cannabis doesn't do much. It's a remarkably benign substance according to our thousands of years of history with it. Our bodies even suggest a direct biological relationship with cannabis – we have an endocannabinoid (literally “internal cannabinoid”) system and our bodies produce endocannabinoids directly, which are not chemically identical to THC, but have similar pharmacological effects – anandamide is almost as potent as THC itself, although occurs in the body at low levels naturally. Please share with me some of the negative effects of one over-consuming THC that are any more significant than someone consuming too much of anything else.
#6 – Hey, the US Department of Transportation put that study together, I didn't. Fair's fair. If THEY can't find much suggestion of a problem, what do you expect me to do? And why do you limit the field sobriety tests to smoking? As I've mentioned, there are a whole LOT of mind-altering substances out there, and I'll repeat that many of them are documented as having histories much less benign than cannabis. I don't care if someone's too high on weed or if they've popped too many lortabs, drank too much cough syrup, or shot up some heroin. Unsafe is unsafe, regardless.
#7 – we're not talking about safety effects of cannabis in the Netherlands, we're talking about their lenient policies being somehow more successful at reducing average national usage rates than our stricter policies do (as you stated “The Netherlands are the last ones who've shown any effectiveness” in response to my mentioning “the gateway theory has been thoroughly debunked. Correlation does not prove causation, and prohibition is a driving factor here as this puts soft drug users in constant access with people also providing hard drugs. The drug policy of separation in the netherlands has shown itself very effective at minimizing this.” I'd say a lower incidence of both hard AND soft drug usage rates is a pretty strong indication that their relaxation towards cannabis and harder-line stance toward more dangerous drugs is very telling that our habits of locking people up, arming police like soldiers to fight a war against ourselves, and various other derivatives of the drug war are bad means of handling a social health issue.
And regardless, I'm pretty sure if there were higher instances of safety-related issues that could in any way be directly attributed to cannabis (which our authorities are able and more than happy to do), we'd hear ALL about it. They just aren't out there.
#8 - *sigh* The experts are still debating that, and THEY'RE the ones suggesting the protective effects of THC since there is no increased cancer risk with cannabis as compared to tobacco and other substances. I'll post this link again ([link edited for length]), and I have to say that your Fox news story about a study in New Zealand interviewing 79 cancer patients – instead of doing any actual lab research – is trumped by my Fox news story with quotes from UCLA's researcher in which 611 lung cancer & 601 head & neck cancers patients were compared with 1040 people with cancer, all matched for life circumstances, and also interviewed about their lifestyles and substance use/abuse..you may want to read the whole article, but here's a pertinent section for you:
“The answer isn’t clear, but the experts say it might have something to do with tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, which is a chemical found in marijuana smoke. Cellular studies and even some studies in animal models suggest that THC has antitumor properties, either by encouraging the death of genetically damaged cells that can become cancerous or by restricting the development of the blood supply that feeds tumors, Tashkin tells WebMD. In a review of the research published last fall, University of Colorado molecular biologist Robert Melamede, PhD, concluded that the THC in cannabis seems to lessen the tumor-promoting properties of marijuana smoke. The nicotine in tobacco has been shown to inhibit the destruction of cancer-causing cells, Melamede tells WebMD. THC does not appear to do this and may even do the opposite. While there was a suggestion in the newly reported study that smoking marijuana is weakly protective against lung cancer, Tashkin says the very weak association was probably due to chance.”
I'm impressed by his hesitation to say the apparent protective effect is due to anything beyond chance, but the fact is there that even heavy cannabis use has never shown a causal relationship with any cancer.
And by the way, there aren't that many MORE carcinogens in cannabis, just larger amounts of the same ones – which happens to not be an issue, honestly, as eating or vaporizing cannabis totally voids this threat as there is no combusting biological material involved. Also, as you can verify through some direct research, despite higher amounts of these substances, cannabis users typically intake MUCH less cannabis than smokers do tobacco. It's a fair offset.
#9 – oi vey. Just go read chapters 4 and 5 at [link edited for length] and check the references for yourself, or actually look into it otherwise. It's history, it's verifiable, it's just...also covered up in the public knowledge, basically. I didn't write the book OR make the history.
#10 – provide me some solid information that hasn't been disputed and dis-proven time and time again. It's the same old song and dance. Hard-line stances toward cannabis seem to cause HIGHER usage rates. Despite higher usage rates, there are much larger ills in society caused by a multitude of legal and accepted substances. There is plenty of evidence that our hard-line stance is counterproductive as there are MANY beneficial uses of the plant, some for ingestion (medical use), and many many more for industry and general benefit of humanity overall. I used to share your view when I was younger. I said I'd never drink, smoke, or do 'drugs'. Then I gained some life experience, and started researching some of these things I have foresworn. Now I drink AND I smoke, and I realize how bad these are for me, but I've also learned that cannabis is demonized above and beyond any justification, and I have on occasion used it as well, feeling much better about that than I do about the tobacco and alcohol. Those two legal drugs alone kill roughly 400,000 americans (yes, just americans) annually! But they're socially acceptable. It makes no sense.
And I'm sorry, but beating the 'marijuana is stronger today than ever before' horse to death gets you nowhere. If it's even true (which IS also disputed), it simply means it takes less marijuana to reach the same effect. Even if someone in the 70's was only smoking 3% THC weed, that just means they would smoke three joints to get as high as someone smoking 30% THC weed would by smoking about a third of a joint. When people get so high, they simply quit smoking. This means less of the other dangerous substances in the plant are inhaled, which means it's a safer high. Getting high is only fun to a point, then it becomes unpleasant, or one becomes what is called “stoned sober” and realizes they're wasting their weed, and simply quits smoking.
My best answer to #10, then is: pot, meet kettle - I guess we're both black on this one!
You did have a major change of attitude. Especially since yourealized that I likely wouldn't come over to your side?
And why would you not answer any questions I posed? I seem to have all the facts, and all you can do is get more flustrated, talk about my alleged ignorance, and continually insist that I don't listen to your point of view.
Did you ever consider you won't listen to my point of view, and discount everything that does not agree with your worldview?
Do you still smoke pot? Wow, who would've thunk...
1) I'd be stressed out too if I was closing on my first home. Do they know you smoke pot?
Â
Yea, we'll have to agree the 0.08% BAC was not arbitrary (in your words). If a state said the illegal BAC was 0.0003%, or if they said it should be 5.3%, THAT would be arbitrary. But since 0.08% is when impairment significantly effects driving for most drivers, that's about as non-arbitrary as you can get.
Â
2) What you don't say, is THC metabolites are directly related to how much THC was in the joint in the first place. Bottom line, all that metabolization is highly dependent upon how much THC was in thereb in the first place. There is a TLV (threshold limit value) for each user that will case a psychosis, an overdose, a blackout---you name it. But you have no idea what that is because you don't know what your body's TLV is. You also don't know what your body's STEL (short term eposure limit is. You also don't know what your body's TWA (time weighted average) is either. Wow, you don't know much, do you? I guess most available research doesn't really know at what time pschoactive effects will cease and desist. At least you're admitting these effects do exist.
Â
3) The best thing to do is look at police reports of people driving drunk that were arrested. Over 25% have cannabis (or THC) in their bloodsteam as well. Now the question is, at what point is the THC making the physical decisions about their driving and when is the alcohol making the decision? We don't really know.
Â
4) As I said, impairment is always an option. It's unfortunate you don't buy into impairment. You always know how much THC-delta-9 is there, right?
Â
5) If there was some sort of symbiotic relationship with cannabis and the body science would have picked that up a long time ago. Your words--[which we see almost no evidence for...] goes with your words for--[marijuana can somehow induce crazy drug-fueled orgies, psychoses, and other horrible things...] is interesting to say the least. How do you know you're going through a psychosis? How do you know you're going through some drug-fueled orgy? Consuming too much doesn't do much to those who forget what happened. How do you know how much you've forgotten? Are you an endocrinologist? Do you know if our bodies really produce endocannabinoids? If it does, do you know for a fact what kind of efffect endocannabinoids might have on the physiological system of the human body? If you do, then you have a lot more knowledge than I thought. I know that overconsuming THC can be detrimental at times. Overconsuming other chemicals n other substances is mostly known.
Â
6) Now that you bring it up, the "Gateway Theory" has some horrid affects with those already smoking weed. Maybe not 100% of current smokers, but a fairly large % no doubt. And you want to legalize smoking pot? Many would say you're smoking something.
Â
7) You may not be talking about induced safety affects from smoking weed in the Netherlands, but I am. How can the Gateway Theory be 'debunked' when millions have used it to graduate to harder chemicals. This might not be true for everyone, but it's true for enough where I fear for my family's life every time they drive down the road. I never said the 'correlation proves causation', but the evidence shows that the correlation may indicate more than we want to admit. Very few other chemicals require locking people up (and there are thousands out there). If smoking marijuana were completely harmless to others, marijuana would not be considered damgerous--and that's not even discussing what is done to the person that smokes. We've heard about many safety related issues relating directly to cannabis, but for some reason you don't want to hear about them.
Â
8) (SIGH!) The experts know very little about the possible side affects of cannabis. Many are trying to prove how innocuous the weed is, but they can't. How can you discuss the poor side affects, when the user will not admit to having them, he will not admit that his actions could have negatively impacted others, he will not admit that he could have been in a state where any effects would not matter to him, and he will not admit any negative side affects for fear of legal reprisal by those affected.
Â
I'm shocked. One biologist says the THC in cannabis seems to lessen the tumor-promoting properties of marijuana smoke. "One" and "seems" do not give me a lot of hope. If marijuana really reduces tumor-producing properties, you'd hear that info from the rooftops! Not so. Carcinogens in cannabis are NOT an issue?? Hey, didn't they tell you? Most marijuana users don't vaporize cannabis. Most smoke it directly inhaling the combustion results. That's how they get the most out of their 'high'. It's also not accurate to say cannabis smokers have much less smoke intake than regular smokers. Typically all they smoke is cannabis, and at 20x the carcinogenicity of a cigaratte, they're literally playing with fate.
Â
9) Goodness gracious. All those reasons why marijuana was listed as illegal was a one-time emotional outburst with no rational reasoning whatsoever. Why don't you pay attention to all the data that's been accumulated over the years as to why marijuana should be made illegal. I hope we're not looking though rose colored glasses here.
Â
10) Please---data given for an actual landing on the moon has been widely disputed. You do believe that they actually DID land there, don't you? Do you only believe in what's not been disputed? It's a verifiable FACT through laboratory analysis that the THC content (ppm) has dramatically increased since it was first measured 40 years ago.
Â
It's typical of one who won't believe data when he likes to bring up the old 'dead horse' analogy. Fact is, even though THC content is much higher today than 40 years ago, very few actually know it is, mainly because they have no care to know what the actual THC content is, and they smoke exactly the number of joints they used to, only now probably more. "When people get high they quit smoking" is the biggest farce I've ever heard. Who ever made up that rule?
Â
You're right. Your best answer to #10 is, yea, I guess he's right!
Â
Remember, don't look at a brain who has inhaled for at least 5 years. Guaranteed, you won't like the slimy mess you'll see.
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2010-05-07 21:47:21
1) Not that I'm aware of, and I'm not really sure why it's pertinent given the fact that I'm a productive member of society with consistent employment and the trust of my employer (?)
Â
2) What exactly do I not know much of?  Acronyms?  I've got real-world experience that you obviously lack here, including that involving large amounts of cannabis, as does society, with large numbers of people using large amounts of cannabis.  Please, once again, I'll ask you to provide one documented example of a verified cannabis-induced psychosis/overdose/blackout.  You're chasing smoke and mirrors  And the link I posted, and many others, DO pretty clearly give intensity and duration of effects, from official sources.  You're caught up in some paranoid world of thinking we know nothing about something we have thousands of years of experience with that many researchers have studied thoroughly.
Â
3) We've already addressed this, although you can ignore it until you're blue in the face. Â Yay. Â Supposedly 25% of drunk drivers have used cannabis recently enough for metabolites to show up in their bloodstream. Â Given the metabolic timeframes as compared to duration of effects previously discussed, this is effectively meaningless. Â And if you'll kindly refer back to the DOT study of the effects of cannabis consumption of driving, all say I'd much rather ALL of these people had JUST smoked a joint instead of having any measurable amount of alcohol in their bloodstreams.
Â
4) I believe my response directly verified 'impairment', actually, so I'm not sure how I don't buy into this other than being well aware that and impairment caused by cannabis tends to be less severe and much less risky than those of most other substances you consider to be better-known variables.  And no...but it doesn't take long to tell, and no, this doesn't mean one takes in vastly larger quantities if they happen to have the superweed you're afraid of - stronger weed just means less is consumed to reach the desired effects, and despite your fear of the imaginary overdose, the effects do not correlate to a wine drinker who gets smashed on high-proof liquor - please feel free to provide any official documentation on the effects of a marijuana "overdose".  Again, speaking from the wisdom of experience, the typical effect is eating WAY too much and going to sleep (some of the other negative effects being apathy and paranoia, resulting in LESS likelihood of engaging in risky behaviours or public exposure, as well as overcompensating to avoid trouble as a result of said paranoia).
Â
5) This is honestly one of the most ignorant segments I've heard you spout so far. Â The endocannabinoid system is well documented. Â For one who is going to use the moon landing as a point of argument, disputing this and the strength of endocannabinoids (I said nothing about their effect on the body, as I mentioned they naturally occur in very small amounts) is embarrasing. Â As to your questions on psychosis, drug-fueled orgies, and forgetting - well gee, let's refer to your evidently accepted and well-known alcohol which is notorious for causing all of the above. Â Yes, I've drank too much before, and yes, I've had what one could easily call psychotic episodes as well as alcohol-fueled orgies AND lost memory as a result. Â And I've had the unpleasant experience of learning about them second-hand as well as through foggy half-memories. Â I can't say the same for any experience I've had with cannabis. Â Sufficient?
Â
6)  What are you even talking about?  Gateway theory only supposes a predisposition to supposedly advancing to stronger or more dangerous substances.  It doesn't have any horrid effects beyond this.  Regardless, and you can check into this on your own although I doubt you will, there are plenty of arguments against cannabis being a causative stepping stone in any sort of progressive gateway path.  Alcohol, caffeine, and tobacco are much more indicted in this alleged process despite your claim that they are better-known quantities and implication that they are less risky than cannabis, and the very real possibility (seeming enforced by research and statistics) exists that the association of cannabis with usage of more risky substances is due to cannabis users being put more in contact with said likely substances as a direct result of prohibition and the lack of separation and regulation in the black market.  More lenient and rational policies towards cannabis, such as in the netherlands, result in LOWER DRUG USE AND ABUSE RATES OVERALL.  Argue it all you will.  The facts are there.
Â
7) See #6. Â And oh boy...tell me, why exactly does cannabis require locking people up? Â How exactly is cannabis more harmful than alcohol, tobacco, fast food, risky sexual behaviors, or a host of other societal ills? Â I'm sure you'll argue for other supposed ills, of which you can point to no documented or verifiable cases -please do if able- but regarding death (which I would say is the biggest risk out there, and yes I know this is 10 years old but check for yourself if you want and if the numbers have changed much since then, use it here) "
"The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435,000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400,000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85,000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial agents (75,000), toxic agents (55,000), motor vehicle crashes (43,000), incidents involving firearms (29,000), sexual behaviors (20,000), and illicit use of drugs (17,000)."
Correction: According to a correction published by the Journal on January 19, 2005, "On page 1240, in Table 2, '400,000 (16.6)' deaths for 'poor diet and physical inactivity' in 2000 should be '365,000 (15.2).' A dagger symbol should be added to 'alcohol consumption' in the body of the table and a dagger footnote should be added with 'in 1990 data, deaths from alcohol-related crashes are included in alcohol consumption deaths, but not in motor vehicle deaths. In 2000 data, 16,653 deaths from alcohol-related crashes are included in both alcohol consumption and motor vehicle death categories."
Source:Â
Mokdad, Ali H., PhD, James S. Marks, MD, MPH, Donna F. Stroup, PhD, MSc, Julie L. Gerberding, MD, MPH, "Actual Causes of Death in the United States, 2000," Journal of the American Medical Association, (March 10, 2004), G225 Vol. 291, No. 10, p. 1238, 1240. [link edited for length] Source for Correction: Journal of the American Medical Association, Jan. 19, 2005, Vol. 293, No. 3, p. 298."
Â
You notice the odd thing? Â Tobacco, diet, alcohol, and a number of other mundane things top ALL illicit drugs combined. Â And would you like to guess what percentage of those illicit drug deaths are contributed to cannabis? Â I'll give you one shot. Â So I suppose cannabis is a horribly dangerous substance that just happens to have an incredibly-low kill rate. Â As I said, though, keep those examples of negative impact greater than those of your apparently-benign-in-comparison alcohol, tobacco, and poor diet coming my way...
Â
8) The experts actually know a great deal, which is why you're here, although you're using poor examples with small sample-sizes. Â There are MANY researchers out there supposing the same thing, for exactly the same reason - when based against similar population sizes and adjusted for other factors, cannabis users do not show any increased risk of cancer or other ills compared to any other group. Â Keep arguing. Â Just back it up with a sample size over 80, please.
Â
9) I would ADORE you if you'd provide me some references to said data other than people being stopped for ALCOHOL-related offenses also having cannabis metabolites in their systems or backwater studies from New Zealand that pale in comparison to common sense, knowledge, and earlier studies with sample sizes an order of magnitude greater, as well as comparison to demographically-adjusted controls. Â I'll gladly take the glasses off when the evidence requires doing so to see clearly.
Â
10) Actually, and don't get distracted here but you DID ask, the moon landing is still a point of contention for me:
Â
We landed there with flight computers less powerful than our modern calculators? Â And haven't been back in 60 years despite the likelihood of resource benefits, scientific advancements, and increases in safety materials and procedures despite supposedly having travelled through the Van Allen radiation belts so often in our near-space ventures? Â And despite the lack of an atmosphere, an astronaut can go hopping by a flag planted on the surface and cause enough of a breeze to stir the flag (and no, this wasn't any residual momentum of the flag in low-pressure atmospheric conditions from the astronaut twisting it into the lunar surface, the flag was still, astronaut hops by, flag moves)?
Â
Regardless, you've deviated me plenty with your lunar sweetness - I'm not saying I doubt that THC concentrations have potentially increased, just that it's up for dispute. Â And as we've discussed, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Â Deride the beaten horse all you want, but that's exactly what it is. Â If cannabis users were not more adept at self-regulation than drinkers were, given the difference characteristics of the two substances, it would be a good analogy - someone drinking a smaller amount of strong liquor will reach the desired effect much sooner than another person drinking a larger amount of wine or beer. Â Unfortunately with alcohol, they will be MUCH less likely to stop once they reach a certain threshold, and the negative effects will be MUCH more messy and unpleasant. Â Despite the way that twists in your side, I'd love to see an actual rebuttal to it that's based in any semblance of reality, with any reference to actual events that will allow a fair comparison. Â I doubt it will be forthcoming, for obvious reasons.
Â
And to be honest, I'd like to know who this "we" you speak of is. Â I don't believe I've seen a single comment from anyone supporting your original article or following comments here, despite the fact that it's usually a fairly common event for most posts on the Nolan Chart. Â The few comments you've received seem to be agreeing with my viewpoint. Â Can you clarify? Â Perhaps you can enlist some enlightened souls who are just remaining silent in appreciation of your tactful responses?
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2010-05-07 22:57:53
As an aside, Kevin, seeing as how my preconceived prejudices that you are (likely both) a misinformed religious person or biased conservative seem to be correct in light of the fact that you are an orthodox catholic who touted the Protect America Act despite the fact that the Bush administration had plenty of warnings of the 9/11 attacks ahead of time despite the supposed limitations of FISA and chose to ignore them, amongst other factors, I have serious misgivings about trusting most things I may likely hear from you. Conservatism, as we have seen in the last few decades does not necessarily equal wisdom, and its blind trust of supposedly conservative leaders implies a severe lack of judgement as well as discretion.
Regardless, by way of apology for my lack of proper closing, I will say: in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti - may He bless you and keep you, may He make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you, may He lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace. Amen! Have a blessed evening.
1) So they didn't know you smoked pot? Why am I not surprised? Would your employer think you were a productive member of society if he knew all the facts before you were hired?
2) How much do you know? Exactly how old are you? You know the police department has every record of cannabis-induced overdose/psychosis/blackout. Why ask me? I've never had one of those, so I have no records here. You have a "pretty clear" recollection of none of those happening? How about "real clear"? YOU have thousands of years experience with cannabis? Who's "we"?
3) You still haven't given any info on the affects of cannabis on alcohol. Oh, that's right. You don''t know.
4) You have no idea what impairment is, do you? Have you ever been checked for impairment? Another fallacy--stonger weed does NOT mean less consumed. You still haven't checked local police records for cannabis ovverdoses, have you?
5) The endocannabinoid system has NOT been well documented. 99% of pot smokers have no idea what an endo cannabinoid is. And the overdose limit for alcohol is well known. The overdose limit for weed is no known at all. Yet you're still OK with it.
6) The Gateway Theory doesn't assume any predisposition to advancing to stronger. What exactly are you talking about? I have never seen ANY data from the Netherlands on drug use and abuse rates. It sounds like you read something you like, and that's all you'll believe.
7) See #6. And let me exlain it one more time: with alcohol you KNOW where the legal limit is, and you know where your limit is. With cannabis, you know neither. Does it get any simpler than that?? Just tell me what your overdose level of cannabis is. I'll give you one shot.
8) Why didn't you explain #8 above? Cannabis users have shown all kinds of peculiarities, increased cancer, blackout rates, different psychoses, etc., etc. You don't read much you disagree with, do you?
9) I've told you, any report you want is right there in the police office. As a non-user, they don't let me keep those reports filed here. But I bet you can get them. New Zealand is the only country to have released those reports. If you don't know the affects of mixing cannabis with alcohol in the bloodstream are, chances are many police stations won't either. It's interesting that you DO admit to having those rose-colored glasses on. How do you know when to take them off?
10) I guess Neil Armstrong might disagree with your assessment. I was hoping you would know where the Van Allen belts are too. How old are you? I didn't see any flag move. Did you? Are you old enough to remember what hapened back 40 years ago?  I guess you've been told that smoking cannabis and drinking alcohol is like comparing apples to oranges. I guess you just don't want to believe any evidence or info I've provided. You're call. If you want to believe something bad enough, you will.
The "we" I speak of is the millions that have never smoked cannabis. You can bet that hose that attest (as you can too) would not dare respond. They don't want their limited 'worldview' crushed to an unrecognizable form.
Keep talking NNS. Your preconceived prejudices do much more than anyone can say! Blind trust of conservative leaders!?!? You're funnier than you can imagine.
Remember, you WILL see the light sooner or later. We're all hoping for 'the sooner' obviously. Go with God, and may He have mercy on your soul.
Hey, when you get a chance, remember to take a look at a brain of a person who's been inhaling weed for 5 years. If nothing I said will make you stop inhaling-------------that WILL.
Posted By: Not Taking Sides?
Date: 2010-06-23 23:02:31
After reading your article and the comments posted I have come to some conclusions.
1.You passionately believe in your cause, just like the others do in thiers
2. Your arguement while convincing at first glance has some major problems.
3. You continiously rely on saying we don't know what the overdose amount is for "crazed psychosis". While all of the commenter's have said that is not the case they have failed to provide numbers. I did some research and found that they did indeed do tests on mice to try to get them to overdose on cannibis. These mice were pumped full of the equivlent of hundreds of pounds of smoked marijuana and try as they might researchers could not reach an overdose amount. Doing some estimation they calculated that Marijuana requires about 40,000 times the amount needed to "get high" to POSSIBLY overdose. Doing the math that means a pothead would have to smoke about 1,500 pounds of marijuana in 15 minutes. Conversevly alcohols overdose rate is about 10 times the amount of alcohol in a glass of whisky can kill you. In the medical literature I have been over I can find no mention of pot phychosis, overdose,blackout exc. Please show me one me if I am wrong as I want to keep an open mind.
4. The brain on marijuana phrase you keep on using is rather tiresome and not accurate as no study has ever shown conclusivly that pot "makes you dumb and lazy" Please google Carl Saagen an avid pot user.
5. In your defense however I would like to say that marijuana does impair driving and may lead to "endangering you wife and kids". However alcohol does to a greater extent as it directly causes recklessness and fast drivng. The marijuana user is slower and more cautious. We already have laws in place making stoned driving a crime. We don't make alcohol illegal for drunk drivng and we shouldn't do it with marijuana.
6. While I have not been to Amsterdam I know by looking at drug use stats that many less percent of kids use pot there as opposed to here with our strict penalties. I have friends in the city who really like the way things work drug wise in thier hometown.
7. The tests of potency have been discredited as the comparison was done on poorly mantained cheap "shwag" pot from the 60's vs. the "kind" bud of today. Basically high potency vs low potency.
8. I am for complete gun rights. But just because I own a pistol for defense doesn't mean I will shoot someone with it. The same can apply to stoners drivng. The goverment's not taking any of my guns!(or pot for that matter)
9. While you accuse those against you of seeing what they want to see(which they may very well be doing) consider that you may be seeing only the information you want to see as well.
I may not agree with what you are saying but you have the right to say what ever you want. Flex your rights!
It sounds like you may be a truly honest person. But one that believes only the facts that he/she wants to.
3) I don't believe I've ever used the word "crazed" before the word psychosis. You can, if you want to. I don't see any link for that "mice" report. If you haven't seen one report mention "psychosis", you haven't read many reports.
4) I definitely don't want to see Carl Sagan's brain after he dies.
5) Alcohol has limits. You know if you exceed them.
6) My grandfather was born in Amsterdam.
7) There is no such thing as a "kind" bud.
8) Stoners do not drive legally.
9) I don't believe I ever used the word "accuse" either. It eems pot has narrowed your vision quite a bit.
Despite a lot of conjecture, and somehow mixing alcohol into the problem, I wonder if you smoke marijuana yourself.
Is that a question or a statement? Don't answer that. Your acrobatic leap from an empty rebuttal (conjecture of what?), ignorance of the drug/alcohol prohibition parallels, and then somersaulting into an ad hominem, should speak for itself. I mean seriously. How do I "somehow" mix alcohol into the problem? With devil magic and a cocktail shaker?
I can hear it now.
"You're obviously not a Catholic!", "You must be a Democraaaaat!"
Or, my favorite.
"What exactly is your GPA?" to, ironically, a user named middle school student.
Good job, Kevy. How Christian of you.
FYI, a person's character has nothing to do with the logical merits of his arguments or assertions. But let's not get logic in the way when all you need is faith and some hand-waving.
What basis do you have saying that marijuana is illegal from the reasons you list?
Harry J. Anslinger ring a bell? Probably not since such a self-righteous little twit like yourself dismisses anything that doesn't conform to your so-called "world view", otherwise you wouldn't have asked such a question, rather rebut the facts I had already laid out. Let me help you.
He's a racist. "There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.” - Harry
You and this guy are on the same page. Am I right? Hmmm...
As you say, we have thousands of years of marijuana use under our belts, and despite many people enjoying the heck out of it, do we have any feel for how many have actually overdosed, how many have done harm to themselves, or how many have killed or maimed others out on the road because they did not know or care what they were doing?
Coherent sentences. Do you type them?
Let me give you a word of advice. Everytime you use the word overdose and associate it with marijuana, people laugh at you. You should also, while doubtful, check out this recent study which concluded Marijuana Smoking Associated With Minimal Changes In Driving Performance. I tend to agree. Never had a speeding ticket, never been in an accident, with 14 years of driving. Oh, right. I'm the exception. With all that overdosing and all.
Humanity doesn't have the natural right to harm others or itself.
Let me ask a Kevy type question. Are you stupid? Point to me where I condone harming others...
Choices that will do that include smoking marijuana. Maybe not every single time, but it happens more times than you can imagine.
Really? You're saying "maybe" some user will hurts others (due to its effects)? So punish them, eh? This is called pre-crime. Don't tell me you must be a Minority Report fanboy? Hold on. Let me ask my pre-cog. No, your imagination is happening more (or less) times then reality.
It seems like the 'choices' you have listed includes choices that are a result of smoking marijuana.
Excuse me? Seems? In other words, you have no idea. Do you? Just pondering it makes me laugh. Go ahead, people. Ask yourself. Does smoking MJ make you feel like being racist? Does... you know what, forget it. You didn't read the choices, you glanced over it.
It's very unfortunate people like you still exist...
You sir are a coward. I would of let this all go, but I found this extremely offensive. You know, Hitler also thought it was unfortunate that certain people still existed, and you sir, are no different them him ideologically in this regard, except you hide behind the skirt of your so-called god and wield little power. You want me to cease to exist? Grow a pair and do it yourself, Kevy. I'll be here.
While I'm here, I'd like to nominate Ross Williams for Best Trouncing of a Religious Fanatic for 2010.
"Because you're a self-righteous jerkwad. You're like the auto accident on the interstate that some people can't avoid looking at just to see the grotesque spectacle for themselves.
You provide entertainment, Kev. Cheap entertainment to be sure, and one that is, unfortunately, not unlike pulling the wings off flies, but entertainment nonetheless."
That was just a small excerpt, obviously. The whole exchange was sadly quite amusing. Besides the part where you equate Americans on the the Left as Enablers of Genocide, to paraphrase. It seems Kevy would make an exception for people like me to be aborted. You're definitely the last person who should be using the term Genocide, Kevy.
It's also amazing the intestinal fortitude many commenters have had in dealing with such a insipid little cultist such yourself. Thankfully, you will change nothing in my life or my state. My goals of seeing prohibition lifted is slowly becoming a reality, and there is not one thing you can do about it besides whine and froth out of your mouth. Perhaps if you didn't have that bible jammed up your ass so hard, you'd be a little less bitter and uptight. Doubtful. I know.
DJ--No problem. I'll take it that you have smoked previously, hence your attitude. Many questions, but very few answers on your part.
Hey, whatever you think, just remember a look at your brain (after you have been smoking for about 5 years) is going to look pretty ugly. Just let me know if you ever see a brain that has smoked for that long.
"I wonder why..." "I wonder why..." "I'm just asking a question"
You don't listen and respond to the questions or the statements which are posted; but you beat around the bush and use your wishy-washy weasel words in a disgusting way.
Let me state a few facts:
(1) Alcohol is a drug because it causes intoxication.
(2) You don't know the exact amount of THC in cannabis because it was not grown by a regulating power (eg a company). You also don't know the exact amount of alcohol in homebrew. "I wonder why" to use your nauseating words.
(3) There is a limit of 0.08% because alcohol is legal, it was investigated, and needs to be regulated. Cannabis will eventually have a limit, too.
(4) The unbiased study under Professor David Nutt ranked the different drugs by harm. Alcohol is much more harmful than tobacco which is much more harmful than cannabis. Alcohol consumption can lead to immediate death, tobacco consumption can lead to a shorter life, while cannabis consumption does not kill people nor shortens the life of people. I wonder why.
1) Most organizations do NOT consider alcohol a drug, because the intoxication limit is known, most side effects are known, and type and % of alcohol is known. With marijuana none of the above is known with THC.
2) You answed my question with your response. Of course you never know the THC content of any marijuana plant because it varies so widely. You could find out, but it's always after the fact. You also know what a percentage of alcohol in a 'homebrew' will do to you. You still don't know what % of THC will cause you to overdose. Or maybe you do?
3) With cannabis, the limit for everyone will likely be different. We've already seen that.
4) Who's Professor Nutt? Alcohol consumption leads to a blood alcohol content that can lead to death. People know what that is. Cannabis consumption has an unknown affect on many. Nobody knows how much THC they're getting, so the affect is unknown. Do you know of any instances where cannabis has caused someone's death? Do you know of any instances where cannabis plus alcohol has produced wildly unthought of results like death?
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2011-07-04 07:38:16
Canadian teenagers are among the largest consumers of cannabis worldwide. The damaging effects of this illicit drug on young brains are worse than originally thought, according to new research by Dr. Gabriella Gobbi, a psychiatric researcher from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre. The new study, published in Neurobiology of Disease, suggests that daily consumption of cannabis in teens can cause depression and anxiety, and have an irreversible long-term effect on the brain.
“We wanted to know what happens in the brains of teenagers when they use cannabis and whether they are more susceptible to its neurological effects than adults,” explained Dr. Gobbi, who is also a professor at McGill University. Her study points to an apparent action of cannabis on two important compounds in the brain — serotonin and norepinephrine — which are involved in the regulation of neurological functions such as mood control and anxiety.
“Teenagers who are exposed to cannabis have decreased serotonin transmission, which leads to mood disorders, as well as increased norepinephrine transmission, which leads to greater long-term susceptibility to stress,” Dr. Gobbi stated.
Previous epidemiological studies have shown how cannabis consumption can affect behaviour in some teenagers. “Our study is one of the first to focus on the neurobiological mechanisms at the root of this influence of cannabis on depression and anxiety in adolescents,” confirmed Dr. Gobbi. It is also the first study to demonstrate that cannabis consumption causes more serious damage during adolescence than adulthood.
Dr. Gabriella Gobbi is a researcher at the neuroscience axis of the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre and also a psychiatrist and associate professor at the Department of Psychiatry, McGill University.
This study was funded by a grant from The Canadian Psychiatric Research Foundation (CPRF)
This article was co-authored by Dr. Francis Rodriguez Bambico; Ms. Nhu-Tram Nguyen, and Mr. Noam Katz from from IR-MUHC and the Neurobiological Psychiatry Unit, Department of Psychiatry, McGill
http://zen36.com/lifestyle/study-pot-gives-kids-brain-damage
Thanks for your report. One thing to mention should be that alcohol is typically used in conjuction with weed. It is not known which chemical--the alcohol, or the THC--is the main actor, or if they add on to each other.
