NationStates Jolt Archive

Quite honestly, marijuana is the most slandered and libeled plant by the American media and government. I was reading the above the influence website after seeing one of their outragous commericals (www.abovetheinfluence.com), and after seeing some "facts" about marijuana, I became increasingly fed up with the lies. I now vent my frustration to you, people of nationstates. Take this little fact

Can you become addicted to marijuana? Actually, yes. More teens are in treatment with a primary diagnosis of marijuana dependence than for all other illicit drugs combined.
Little do they mention that the teens in "treatment" are there from a court order made on ignorant assumptions from marijuana. Judges keep sending to kids to treatment, because they think marijuana is addicting, and they think marijuana is addicting because there are so many kids in treatment, and there are so many kids in treatment because judges order them into treatment, because they think marijuana is addicting, because...

Thats only one thing though, I think this can explain it much better than I can.

ALLEGATION #1
“There is a serious drug problem in this country.”

TRUTH
America does have a serious drug problem and our public policy needs to better address this issue with health and science-based educational programs, and by providing more accessible treatment to those who are drug-dependent. Unfortunately, the bulk of America’s anti-drug efforts and priorities remain fixated on arresting and jailing drug consumers – particularly recreational marijuana smokers.1

In this sense, there is a serious drug enforcement problem in this country. Despite the notion that America’s drug war focuses primarily on targeting so-called hard drugs and hard drug dealers, data compiled by the FBI reports that 46 percent of all drug arrests are for marijuana.2

In 2003, the last year for which statistics are available, law enforcement arrested an estimated 755,186 persons for marijuana violations.3 This total far exceeds the total number of arrests for the violent crimes of murder, manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.4 Today, state and local taxpayers spend between $5.3 billion5 and $7.7 billion6 dollars annually arresting and prosecuting individuals for marijuana violations. The federal government spends an additional $4 billion per year on marijuana-related activities.7 These monies would be far better spent targeting violent crime and protecting national security.

Since 1990, over 7.2 million Americans have been arrested on marijuana charges,8 more than the populations of Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wyoming combined.9 Nearly 90 percent of these arrests were for simple possession, not cultivation or sale.10

Despite the fact that reported adult use of marijuana has remained relatively constant for the past decade, annual marijuana arrests have more than doubled since 1990.11 Arrests for cocaine and heroin have declined sharply during much of this period,12 indicating that increased enforcement of marijuana laws is being achieved at the expense of enforcing laws against the possession and trafficking of more dangerous drugs.

Rather than stay this course, federal officials ought to take a page from their more successful public health campaigns discouraging teen pregnancy, drunk driving, and adolescent tobacco smoking – all of which have been significantly reduced in recent years.13 America did not achieve these results by banning the use of alcohol or tobacco products or by targeting and arresting adults who engage in these behaviors responsibly, but through honest, fact-based public education campaigns. There is no reason why these same common sense principles and strategies should not apply to marijuana and responsible adult marijuana use.

ALLEGATION #2
“Nationwide, no drug matches the threat posed by marijuana.”

TRUTH
This statement is pure hyperbole. By overstating marijuana’s potential harms, America’s policy-makers and law enforcement community undermine their credibility and ability to effectively educate the public of the legitimate harms associated with more dangerous drugs like heroin, crack cocaine, and methamphetamine.

In fact, almost all drugs – including those that are legal – pose greater threats to individual health and/or society than does marijuana.14 According to the Centers for Disease Control, approximately 46,000 people die each year from alcohol-induced deaths (not including motor vehicle fatalities where alcohol impairment was a contributing factor), such as overdose and cirrhosis.15 Similarly, more than 440,000 premature deaths annually are attributed to tobacco smoking.16 By comparison, marijuana is non-toxic and cannot cause death by overdose.17 In a large-scale population study of marijuana use and mortality published in the American Journal of Public Health, marijuana use, even long-term, “showed little if any effect … on non-AIDS mortality in men and on total mortality in women.”18

After an exhaustive, federally commissioned study by the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 1999 examining all of marijuana’s potential health risks, authors concluded, “Except for the harms associated with smoking, the adverse effects of marijuana use are within the range tolerated for other medications.”19 (It should be noted that many risks associated with marijuana and smoking may be mitigated by alternative routes of administration such as vaporization.)20 The IOM further added, “There is no conclusive evidence that marijuana causes cancer in humans, including cancers usually related to tobacco use.”21 A 2001 large-scale case-controlled study affirmed this finding, concluding that “the balance of evidence … does not favor the idea the marijuana as commonly used in the community is a major causal factor for head, neck, or lung cancer.”22 More recently, a 2004 study published in the journal Cancer Research concluded that cannabis use is not associated with an increased risk of developing oral cancer “regardless of how long, how much, or how often a person has used marijuana.”23

Numerous studies and federally commissioned reports have endorsed marijuana’s relative safety compared to other drugs, and recommended its decriminalization or legalization.24 Virtually all of these studies have concluded that the criminal “classification of cannabis is disproportionate in relation both to its inherent harmfulness, and to the harmfulness of other substances.”25 Even a pair of editorials by the premiere British medical journal, The Lancet, acknowledge: “The smoking of cannabis, even long-term, is not harmful to health.26 … It would be reasonable to judge cannabis as less of a threat … than alcohol or tobacco.”27 Indeed, by far the greatest danger to health posed by the use of marijuana stems from a criminal arrest and/or conviction.

ALLEGATION #3
“60 percent of teenagers in treatment have a primary marijuana diagnosis. This means that the addiction to marijuana by our youth exceeds their addiction rates for alcohol, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, ecstasy and all other drugs combined.”

TRUTH
This statement is purposefully misleading. Although admissions to drug rehabilitation clinics among marijuana users have increased dramatically since the mid-1990s, this rise in marijuana admissions is due to a proportional increase in the number of people arrested by law enforcement for marijuana violations and subsequently referred to drug treatment by the criminal justice system.28 Primarily, these are young people arrested for minor possession offenses,29 brought before a criminal judge (or drug court), and ordered to rehabilitation in lieu of jail or juvenile detention. As such, this data is in no way indicative of whether the person referred to treatment is suffering from any symptoms of dependence associated with marijuana use; most individuals are ordered to attend supervised drug treatment simply to avoid jail time. In fact, since 1995, the proportion of admissions from all sources other than the criminal justice system has actually declined, according to the federal Drug and Alcohol Services Information System (DASIS).30 Consequently, DASIS now reports that 58 percent of all marijuana admissions are through the criminal justice system.31 Referrals from schools and health care/drug abuse care providers comprise another 15 percent of all admissions.32 By comparison, only 38 percent of those admitted to treatment for alcohol and only 29 percent of those admitted to treatment for cocaine are referred by the criminal justice system.33

ALLEGATION #4
“We may never rid this country of every crack pipe or marijuana plant. However, research proves that we have made substantial success in reducing drug use in this country.”

TRUTH
In fact, marijuana enforcement has had no discernable long-term impact on marijuana availability or use. According to the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, teenagers report that marijuana has surpassed tobacco and alcohol as the easiest drug to obtain.34 This result is hardly surprising, given that annual federal data compiled by the University of Michigan’s Monitoring the Future project reports that an estimated 86 percent of 12th graders say that marijuana is “fairly easy” or “very easy to get.”35 This percentage has remained virtually unchanged since the mid-1970s36 – despite remarkably increased marijuana penalties, enforcement, and the prevalence of anti-marijuana propaganda since that time.

The percentage of adolescents experimenting with marijuana has also held steady over the long-term. According to annual data compiled by Monitoring the Future, 47.3 percent of 12th graders reported having used marijuana in 1975.37 Despite billions of dollars spent on drug enforcement and drug education efforts (such as the federally funded DARE program) since that time, today’s number (for the Class of 2004) is 49 percent.38

In addition, according to data compiled by the federal National Household on Drug Abuse survey, an estimated 2.6 million Americans tried marijuana for the first time in the year 2003, up from 1.5 million in 1990 and 0.8 million in 1965.39 Today, nearly one out of every two American adults acknowledges they have used marijuana, up from fewer than one in three in 1983.40

ALLEGATION #5
“The truth is that marijuana is not harmless.”

TRUTH
This statement is correct; marijuana isn’t harmless. In fact, no substance is, including those that are legal. However, any risk presented by marijuana smoking falls within the ambit of choice we permit the individual in a free society.41 According to federal statistics, approximately 80 million Americans self-identify as having used marijuana at some point in their lives,42 and relatively few acknowledge having suffered significant deleterious health effects due to their use. America's public policies should reflect this reality, not deny it.

Marijuana’s relative risk to the user and society does not support criminal prohibition or the continued arrest of more than 750,000 Americans on marijuana charges every year. As concluded by the Canadian House of Commons in their December 2002 report recommending marijuana decriminalization, “The consequences of conviction for possession of a small amount of cannabis for personal use are disproportionate to the potential harm associated with the behavior.”43

ALLEGATION #6
“As a factor in emergency room visits, marijuana has risen 176 percent since 1994, and now surpasses heroin.”

TRUTH
This statement is intentionally misleading as it wrongly suggests that marijuana use is a significant causal factor in an alarming number of emergency room visits. It is not.

Federal statistics gathered by the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) do indicate an increase in the number of people “mentioning” marijuana during hospital emergency room visits. (This increase is hardly unique to marijuana however, as the overall number of drug mentions has risen dramatically since the late 1980s – likely due to improved federal reporting procedures.)44 However, a marijuana “mention” does not mean that marijuana caused the hospital visit or that it was a factor in leading to the ER episode, only that the patient said that he or she had used marijuana previously.45

For every emergency room visit related to drug use (so-called “drug abuse episodes”), hospital staff list up to five drugs the patient reports having used recently, regardless of whether or not their use of the drug caused the visit. The frequency with which any drug is mentioned in such visits is generally proportional to its frequency of use, irrespective of its inherent dangers.46

It is foolish for anyone – especially those in the administration’s anti-drug office – to imply that marijuana is in any way potentially more dangerous to one’s health than heroin. Marijuana is mentioned to hospital staff more frequently than heroin, not because it’s more dangerous, but simply because a far greater percentage of the population uses marijuana than uses heroin. It is also worth noting that alcohol is by far the drug most frequently reported to DAWN, even though it is reported only when present in combination with another reportable drug. Moreover, marijuana is rarely mentioned independent of other drugs.47

ALLEGATION #7
“Smoked marijuana leads to changes in the brain similar to those caused by the use of cocaine and heroin.”

TRUTH
Allegations that marijuana smoking alters brain function or has long-term effects on cognition are reckless and scientifically unfounded. Federally sponsored population studies conducted in Jamaica, Greece and Costa Rica found no significant differences in brain function between long-term smokers and non-users.48 Similarly, a 1999 study of 1,300 volunteers published in The American Journal of Epidemiology reported "no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of cannabis” over a 15-year period.49 More recently, a meta-analysis of neuropsychological studies of long-term marijuana smokers by the National Institute on Drug Abuse reaffirmed this conclusion.50 In addition, a study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in April 2002 reported that even former heavy marijuana smokers experience no negative measurable effects on intelligence quotient.51

Most recently, researchers at Harvard Medical School performed magnetic resonance imaging on the brains of 22 long-term cannabis users (reporting a mean of 20,100 lifetime episodes of smoking) and 26 controls (subjects with no history of cannabis use). Imaging displayed "no significant differences" between heavy cannabis smokers compared to controls. "These findings are consistent with recent literature suggesting that cannabis use is not associated with structural changes within the brain as a whole or the hippocampus in particular," authors concluded.52

Claims specifically charging that marijuana leads to brain changes similar to those induced by heroin and cocaine are based solely on the results of a handful of animal studies that demonstrated that THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana) can stimulate dopamine production under certain extreme conditions, and that the immediate cessation of THC (via the administration of a chemical blocking agent) will initiate some mild symptoms of withdrawal. These findings have little bearing on the human population because, according to the US Institute of Medicine, “The long half-life and slow elimination from the body of THC … prevent[s] substantial abstinence symptoms” in humans.53 As a result, such symptoms have only been identified in rare, unique patient settings – limited to adolescents in treatment for substance abuse, or in clinical research trials where volunteers are administered marijuana or THC daily.54

ALLEGATION #8
“One recent study involving a roadside check of reckless drivers (not impaired by alcohol) showed that 45 percent tested positive for marijuana.”

TRUTH
Though portrayed by politicians and police as a serious problem bordering on "epidemic," actual data is sparse concerning the prevalence of motorists driving under the influence of drugs, and more importantly, what role illicit drug use plays in traffic accidents.55

While it is well established that alcohol increases accident risk, evidence of marijuana’s culpability in on-road driving accidents is less understood. Although marijuana intoxication has been shown to mildly impair psychomotor skills, this impairment does not appear to be severe or long lasting.56 In driving simulator tests, this impairment is typically manifested by subjects decreasing their driving speed and requiring greater time to respond to emergency situations.57

This impairment does not appear to play a significant role in on-road traffic accidents when THC levels in a driver's blood are low and/or THC is not consumed in combination with alcohol. For example, a 1992 US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration review of fatally injured drivers found, "THC-only drivers [those with detectable levels of THC in their blood] had a responsibility rate below that of drug-free drivers."58 A 1993 study conducted by the Institute of Human Psychopharmacology at the University of Maastrict (the Netherlands) evaluating cannabis' effects on actual driving performance found, "THC in single inhaled doses ... has significant, yet not dramatic, dose-related impairing effects on driving performance. ... THC's effects on road-tracking ... never exceeded alcohol's at BACs of .08% and were in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs."59

A 2002 review of seven separate crash culpability studies involving 7,934 drivers reported that “crash culpability studies [which attempt to correlate the responsibility of a driver for an accident to his or her consumption of a drug and the level of drug compound in his or her system] have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes.” 60

More recently, a 2004 scientific review of driver impairment and motor vehicle crashes suggested that "recent cannabis use may increase crash risk, whereas, past use of cannabis as determined by the presence of THC-COOH (marijuana’s inactive metabolite) in drivers does not."61 An additional review by Drummer and colleagues further suggested that higher THC blood levels -- particularly those above 5 ng/ml, indicating that the cannabis use had likely been within the past 1-3 hours -- may be correlated with an elevated accident risk, noting, "The odds ratio for THC concentrations of 5 ng/ml or higher [are] similar to those drivers with a BAC of at least 0.15%."62 However, a meta-analysis by a German research team of 87 experimental studies on cannabis did not find such elevated impairment, suggesting "that a THC level in blood serum of 5ng/ml ... produces the same overall reduction in test performance as does a BAC of 0.05%."63

But, unlike with alcohol, the accident risk caused by cannabis -- particularly among those who are not acutely intoxicated -- appears limited because subjects under its influence are generally aware of their impairment and compensate to some extent, such as by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required.64 This response is the opposite of that exhibited by drivers under the influence of alcohol, who tend to drive in a more risky manner proportional to their intoxication.65

In short, the quantitative role of cannabis consumption in on-road traffic accidents is, at this point, not well understood. However, marijuana does not appear to play a significant role in vehicle crashes, particularly when compared to alcohol.66 As summarized by the Canadian Senate’s exhaustive 2002 report: “Cannabis: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy,” “Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving.” 67

ALLEGATION #9
“The truth is that marijuana is addictive. … Marijuana users have an addiction rate of about 10%, and of the 5.6 million drug users who are suffering from illegal drug dependence or abuse, 62 percent are dependent on or abusing marijuana.”

TRUTH
Marijuana use is not marijuana abuse. According to the US Institute of Medicine’s 1999 Report: “Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base,” “Millions of Americans have tried marijuana, but most are not regular users, … [and] few marijuana users become dependent on it.”68 In fact, less than 10 percent of marijuana users ever exhibit symptoms of dependence (as defined by the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-IV criteria.)69 By comparison 15 percent of alcohol users, 17 percent of cocaine users, and a whopping 32 percent of cigarette smokers statistically exhibit symptoms of drug dependence.70

Marijuana is well recognized as lacking the so-called "dependence liability" of other substances. According to the IOM, “Experimental animals that are given the opportunity to self administer cannabinoids generally do not choose to do so, which has led to the conclusion that they are not reinforcing or rewarding.”71 Among humans, most marijuana users voluntarily cease their marijuana smoking by their late 20s or early 30s – often citing health or professional concerns and/or the decision to start a family.72 Contrast this pattern with that of the typical tobacco smoker – many of whom begin as teens and continue smoking daily the rest of their lives.

That's not to say that some marijuana smokers do not become psychologically dependent on marijuana or find quitting difficult. But a comprehensive study released in 2002 by the Canadian Senate concluded that this dependence "is less severe and less frequent than dependence on other psychotropic substances, including alcohol and tobacco."73 Observable withdrawal symptoms attributable to marijuana are also exceedingly rare. According to the Institute of Medicine, these symptoms are “mild and short lived”74 compared to the profound physical withdrawal symptoms of other drugs, such as alcohol or heroin, and unlikely to persuade former smokers to re-initiate their marijuana use.75

ALLEGATION #10
“Average THC levels rose from less than 1% in the late 1970s to more than 7% in 2001, and sinsemilla potency increased from 6% to 13%, and now reach as high as 33%”

TRUTH
This statement is both inaccurate and misleading. No population en masse has ever smoked marijuana averaging less than one percent THC since such low potency marijuana would not induce euphoria. In many nations, including Canada and the European Union, marijuana of one percent THC or less is legally classified as an agricultural fiber crop, hemp.76

Although annual marijuana potency data compiled by the University of Mississippi’s Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences does show a slight increase in marijuana’s strength through the years,77 this increase is not nearly as dramatic as purported by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. In addition, quantities of exceptionally strong strains of marijuana or sinsemilla (seedless marijuana) comprise only a small percentage of the overall marijuana market. The NIDA-sponsored Marijuana Potency Monitoring Project reports that less than 10 percent of DEA seized marijuana samples are above 15 percent. Less than 2 percent of marijuana seized from the domestic market contains more than 20% THC.78 Data from Europe also refutes claims of increased cannabis potency, concluding "the potencies of resin and herbal cannabis ... have shown little or no change, at least over the past ten years."79 The drug czar’s upper-level THC figures are clearly a scare tactic.

Moreover, it’s worth noting that more potent marijuana is not necessarily more dangerous.80 Marijuana poses no risk of fatal overdose, regardless of THC content, and since marijuana’s greatest potential health hazard stems from the user’s intake of carcinogenic smoke, it may be argued that higher potency marijuana may be slightly less harmful because it permits people to achieve desired psychoactive effects while inhaling less burning material.81 In addition, studies indicate that marijuana smokers distinguish between high and low potency marijuana and moderate their use accordingly,82 just as an alcohol consumer would drink fewer ounces of (high potency) bourbon than they would ounces of (low potency) beer.

ALLEGATION #11
“The truth is that marijuana and violence are linked.”

TRUTH
Absolutely not. No credible research has shown marijuana use to play a causal factor in violence, aggression or delinquent behavior, dating back to former President Richard Nixon’s “First Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse” in 1972, which concluded, “In short, marihuana is not generally viewed by participants in the criminal justice community as a major contributing influence in the commission of delinquent or criminal acts.”83

More recently, the Canadian Senate’s 2002 “Discussion Paper on Cannabis” reaffirmed: “Cannabis use does not induce users to commit other forms of crime. Cannabis use does not increase aggressiveness or anti-social behavior.”84 In contrast, research has demonstrated that certain legal drugs, such as alcohol, do induce aggressive behavior.

“Cannabis differs from alcohol … in one major respect. It does not seem to increase risk-taking behavior,” the British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs concluded in its 2002 report recommending the depenalization of marijuana. “This means that cannabis rarely contributes to violence either to others or to oneself, whereas alcohol use is a major factor in deliberate self-harm, domestic accidents and violence.”85

Most recently, a logistical retrogression analysis of approximately 900 trauma patients by SUNY-Buffalo’s Department of Family Medicine found that use of cannabis is not independently associated with either violent or non-violent injuries requiring hospitalization.86 Alcohol and cocaine use were associated with violence-related injuries, the study found. Accordingly, fewer than five percent of state and local law enforcement agencies identify marijuana as a drug that significantly contributes to violent crime in their areas.87

ALLEGATION #12
“The truth is that we aren’t imprisoning individuals for just ‘smoking a joint.’ … Nationwide, the percentage of those in prison for marijuana possession as their most serious offense is less than half of one percent (0.46%), and those generally involved exceptional circumstances.”

TRUTH
This statement is grossly inaccurate and misleading. Police have arrested more than six million Americans for marijuana violations since 1994, and now average more than 750,000 arrests per year.88 The overwhelming majority of these arrests – 88 percent in 2003 – are for simple possession only, not marijuana cultivation or sale.89

While not all of those individuals arrested are eventually sentenced to long terms in jail, the fact remains that the repercussions of a marijuana arrest alone are significant – including (but not limited to):

probation and mandatory drug testing
loss of driving privileges
loss of federal college aid
asset forfeiture
revocation of professional driver’s license
loss of certain welfare benefits such as food stamps
removal from public housing
loss of child custody
loss of employment.
In other words, whether or not marijuana offenders ultimately serve time in jail, hundreds of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens are having their lives needlessly destroyed each year for nothing more than smoking marijuana.

Specific totals on marijuana offenders behind bars are seldom available because federal statistics do not categorize drug offenders by drug type or drug offense. However, according to a 1997 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of federal and state prisoners, approximately 19 percent federal and 13 percent of state drug offenders are incarcerated for marijuana offenses.90 Based on those statistics, a 1999 paper published by the Federation of American Scientists estimated that nearly 60,000 inmates (roughly 1 in every 7 drug prisoners) were incarcerated for marijuana offenses at that time.91 A more recent analysis performed by the Washington DC think-tank The Sentencing Project now estimates this total to exceed 68,000 marijuana prisoners.92

ALLEGATION #13
“The truth is that marijuana is a gateway drug. … People who used marijuana are 8 times more likely to have used cocaine, 15 times more likely to have used heroin, and 5 times more likely to develop a need for treatment of abuse or dependence on ANY drug.”

TRUTH
Nonsense. According to the Canadian Senate’s 2002 study: “Cannabis: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy,” “Cannabis itself is not a cause of other drug use.”93 This finding concurs with the conclusions of the US National Academy of Science’s Institute of Medicine 1999 study, which stated that marijuana is not a “gateway drug to the extent that it is a cause or even that it is the most significant predictor of serious drug abuse.”94 (The IOM further noted that underage smoking and alcohol abuse typically precede marijuana use.)95 Statistically, for every 104 Americans who have tried marijuana, there is only one regular user of cocaine, and less than one user of heroin, according to annual data compiled by the federal National Household Survey on Drug Abuse.96

For the overwhelmingly majority of smokers, pot is a 'terminus' rather than a gateway.97

ALLEGATION #14
“The truth is that marijuana legalization would be a nightmare in America. After Dutch coffee shops started selling marijuana in small quantities, use of the drug nearly tripled … between 1984 and 1996. While our nation’s cocaine consumption has decreased by 80 percent over the past 15 years, Europe’s has increased … and the Dutch government has started to reconsider its policy.”

TRUTH
This statement is inaccurate and greatly distorts the well-documented European drug policy experience. Most European countries – including Belgium, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland – do not criminally arrest marijuana users.98 Yet virtually every European nation, including the Netherlands, has drastically lower rates of marijuana and drug use among their adult and teen population compared to the United States.99 In fact, the national drug policy trends in Europe are currently moving toward more liberal marijuana laws, and away from US-styled drug policy.100 For example, Great Britain’s Parliament formally downgraded marijuana in 2003 so that its possession is no longer an arrestable offense.101

As to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy’s specific claims regarding Dutch marijuana use, the truth is that lifetime reported use of marijuana by Dutch citizens aged 12 and older is less than half of what is reported in America.102 In addition, Dutch policy-makers downgraded marijuana offenses in the mid-1970s; this makes it unlikely that any purported increase in Dutch marijuana use during the 1980s was directly attributable to the change in law. In fact, most experts agree that marijuana’s illegality has little impact on marijuana use.103 According to a 2001 study published in The British Journal of Psychiatry, “The Dutch experience, together with those of a few other countries with more modest [marijuana] policy changes, provides a moderately good empirical case that removal of criminal prohibitions on cannabis possession (decriminalization) will not increase the prevalence of marijuana or any other illicit drug; the argument for decriminalization is thus strong.” 104

ALLEGATION #15
“The truth is that marijuana is not a medicine, and no credible research suggest that it is.”

TRUTH
This allegation is a lie, plain and simple. According to a 2001 national survey of US physicians conducted for the American Society of Addiction Medicine, nearly half of all doctors with an opinion on the subject support legalizing marijuana as a medicine.105 Moreover, no less than 80 state and national health care organizations – including the American Public Health Association,106 The American Nurses Association,107 and The New England Journal of Medicine108 – support immediate, legal patient access to medical marijuana.109 The medical community's support for medical marijuana is not based on "pseudo-science," but rather on the reports of thousands of patients and scores of scientific studies affirming marijuana’s therapeutic value.

Modern research suggests that cannabis is a valuable aid in the treatment of a wide range of clinical applications. These include pain relief – particularly of neuropathic pain (pain from nerve damage) – nausea, spasticity, glaucoma, and movement disorders.110 Marijuana is also a powerful appetite stimulant, specifically for patients suffering from HIV, the AIDS wasting syndrome, or dementia.111 Emerging research suggests that marijuana's medicinal properties may protect the body against some types of malignant tumors112 and are neuroprotective.113

Recent scientific reviews supporting marijuana’s use as a therapeutic agent include a 1998 report by Britain’s House of Lords Science and Technology Committee concluding: “The government should allow doctors to prescribe cannabis for medical use. ... Cannabis can be effective in some patients to relieve symptoms of multiple sclerosis, and against certain forms of pain. ... This evidence is enough to justify a change in the law.”114

A 1999 review by the US Institute of Medicine (conducted at the request of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy) added, “The accumulated data indicate a potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs, particularly for symptoms such as pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation,”115 and recommended the US government allow immediate single patient clinical trials where upon patients could legally use inhaled marijuana medicinally in a controlled setting.116 It should be noted that the IOM also reviewed the medical efficacy of the legal synthetic THC drug Marinol, which it found to have “poor bioavailability,” slow onset, and adverse effects such as “anxiety, depersonalization, dizziness, euphoria, dysphoria, [and] somnolence” in approximately one-third of patients who use it.117 As such, authors noted that many patients prefer whole smoked marijuana over this legal alternative.

An overview of marijuana’s medical efficacy was conducted by the Canadian Senate’s Special Committee on Illegal Drugs in 2002. The study advised Parliament to revise existing federal regulations legalizing the drug to qualified patients so that any “person affected by one of the following [medical conditions]: wasting syndrome; chemotherapy treatment; fibromyalgia; epilepsy; multiple sclerosis; accident-induced chronic pain; and some physical conditions including migraines and chronic headaches, whose physical state has been certified by a physician or an individual duly authorized by the competent medical association of the province or territory in question, may choose to buy cannabis and its derivatives for therapeutic purposes.”118 Today, Canadians can legally choose between using medical cannabis, as authorized by Health Canada, or the natural marijuana extract spray known as Sativex.119

Clearly, the policy issue of medical marijuana is a public health issue, and should not be held hostage by the war on drugs. Basic compassion and common sense demand that our nation allows America’s seriously ill citizens to use whatever medication their physicians deem safe and effective to alleviate their pain and suffering, and the scientific record supports their use of therapeutic cannabis.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5515#alleg2

And for those of you thinking "well it has to be illegal for a reason", and that reason be because of medical research and government hearings. Here is your real reason(can't post because of length)

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html

When are we goign to end this pointless and corprate sponcered war on a plant? Don't we have better things to spend our money on?

Damn that is one long post. However without reading it I will see Marijuana should be legal.

Marijuana users aren't demonized by anyone. If anything, the popular culture embraces marijuana use. You can't watch t.v. or a comedy for more than a few minutes without hearing some reference to marijuana - I've never touched the stuff, but I'm pretty sick of hearing about it in movies and on t.v., to be honest. I voted against legalization once, I think, but that might've been medical. I can't really remember.

No one who knows anything about anything buys 100% into that above the influence crap.

Marijuana users aren't demonized by anyone. If anything, the popular culture embraces marijuana use. You can't watch t.v. or a comedy for more than a few minutes without hearing some reference to marijuana - I've never touched the stuff, but I'm pretty sick of hearing about it in movies and on t.v., to be honest. I voted against legalization once, I think, but that might've been medical. I can't really remember.

You were on it at the time, weren't you? Admit it!

Seriously though, all the literature I've read (and not the legalize it, It kills off weak brain-cells those you're smarter for it, propaganda magazines) it's effects are the same, if not slightly less detrimental than beer.

No, you're absolutely wrong. Marijuana isn't the most slandered plant in modern medicine, it's Poison Ivy.

Get it right next time, mmm'kay?

No, you're absolutely wrong. Marijuana isn't the most slandered plant in modern medicine, it's Poison Ivy.

Get it right next time, mmm'kay?

Is poison ivy even worth anything?

Is poison ivy even worth anything?

Not a dime. Theoretically, you could smoke it, but all that does is make your lungs itchy. :)

I don't know this from firsthand experience, rather, from secondhand. A couple of my acquaintances from high school who were, coincidentally, smoking pot at the time, busted out the weed logic (complete with the perception that every single one of their worthless thoughts were imperceptibly deep), and thinking because poison ivy had toxins, and toxins are what causes these sorts of induced states, poison ivy would cut the mustard.

Needless to say, they wound up in the hospital, and they were miserable for weeks.

Marijuana, the world's most-used drug? Bwahahahahaha!
Alcohol, the world's most-used drug? Bwahahahahaha!
Unless "water" or "air" gets declared a drug", the #1 drug (at 5+ billion people) shall remain "religion".

Leave Marijuana Alone! Leave It Alone! I'm Serious!

Is poison ivy even worth anything?

Yes it is. It is worth memories. You do all kinds of things with it. Like tell drunk people its good toliet paper. :D

Marijuana, the world's most-used drug? Bwahahahahaha!
Alcohol, the world's most-used drug? Bwahahahahaha!
Unless "water" or "air" gets declared a drug", the #1 drug (at 5+ billion people) shall remain "religion".

"A drug, broadly speaking, is any chemical substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function."

-World Health Organisation. (1969). WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence. Sixteenth report. (Technical report series. No. 407).Geneva:World Health Organisation.

Religion is not a chemical substance. Don't be thick.

Quite honestly, marijuana is the most slandered and libeled plant by the American media and government. I was reading the above the influence website after seeing one of their outragous commericals (www.abovetheinfluence.com), and after seeing some "facts" about marijuana, I became increasingly fed up with the lies. I now vent my frustration to you, people of nationstates. Take this little fact


Little do they mention that the teens in "treatment" are there from a court order made on ignorant assumptions from marijuana. Judges keep sending to kids to treatment, because they think marijuana is addicting, and they think marijuana is addicting because there are so many kids in treatment, and there are so many kids in treatment because judges order them into treatment, because they think marijuana is addicting, because...

Thats only one thing though, I think this can explain it much better than I can.


http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5515#alleg2

And for those of you thinking "well it has to be illegal for a reason", and that reason be because of medical research and government hearings. Here is your real reason(can't post because of length)

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html

When are we goign to end this pointless and corprate sponcered war on a plant? Don't we have better things to spend our money on?

ya know...

we ALL have the internet here. you dont have to quote the entire thing. you can pull out a few important lines and just LINK to the rest of it for those who have some desire to read it.

Not a dime. Theoretically, you could smoke it, but all that does is make your lungs itchy. :)

I don't know this from firsthand experience, rather, from secondhand. A couple of my acquaintances from high school who were, coincidentally, smoking pot at the time, busted out the weed logic (complete with the perception that every single one of their worthless thoughts were imperceptibly deep), and thinking because poison ivy had toxins, and toxins are what causes these sorts of induced states, poison ivy would cut the mustard.

Needless to say, they wound up in the hospital, and they were miserable for weeks.

heh, all the more reason that the plant deserves all the slander it gets. :D

of course if its deserved than it isn't really slander i suppose...

Ah, so addictive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Religion#Dogmatism), destructive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Religion#Harmful_to_society), mind-altering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Religion#Fruits_of_madness) objects are acceptable if they're designed to be ingested through the ears instead of the nose are the mouth.

Ah, so addictive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Religion#Dogmatism), destructive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Religion#Harmful_to_society), mind-altering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Religion#Fruits_of_madness) objects are acceptable if they're designed to be ingested through the ears instead of the nose are the mouth.
Que? Nothing was said about "acceptable." He just said it's not a chemical substance and therefore not a drug.

I am confused by the entire marijuana debate. On one hand, there are people saying "Marijuana is evil! Watch Reefer Madness, it tells it like it is!" That is obviously untrue. On the other hand, most of the people that I hear asking for legalization base it on their own experiences, and anecdotal evidence should never be used to support a law.
This site looks like it may have some useful information. But it's still difficult to listen to someone say, "Marijuana is good" without thinking they're a pothead.

Leave Marijuana Alone! Leave It Alone! I'm Serious!

Win.

Que? Nothing was said about "acceptable." He just said it's not a chemical substance and therefore not a drug.

Not in this thread (save for my post), but double standards have been used a LOT to support religion, both on and off of NSG.


I am confused by the entire marijuana debate. On one hand, there are people saying "Marijuana is evil! Watch Reefer Madness, it tells it like it is!" That is obviously untrue. On the other hand, most of the people that I hear asking for legalization base it on their own experiences, and anecdotal evidence should never be used to support a law.
This site looks like it may have some useful information. But it's still difficult to listen to someone say, "Marijuana is good" without thinking they're a pothead.

Back to the subject, I'd say that marijuana is bad, but nowhere near as bad as some people tend to make it out to be. If used responsibly (medical marijuana) it could go from a small minus to a small plus, but...

Back to the subject, I'd say that marijuana is bad, but nowhere near as bad as some people tend to make it out to be. If used responsibly (medical marijuana) it could go from a small minus to a small plus, but...

That's my take on it, too, but it's based mostly on a myriad of different personal accounts with maybe a scientific study or two thrown in the mix. Nothing that I could print up as a bill and submit to the Senate.

I think marijuana should be legal but really only from a anti-crime prospective

I only read the "The truth is" bit of the quote because I don't want to be here all day, but here are the issues with marijuana as I see them:
1. Chronic disease: I don't know what the actual risk factor was, but It causes the onset of emphysema earlier than smoking tobacco. Coupled with that are psychiatric issues such as schizophrenia and paranoia from overuse. Once you add in CVD, CHD and neurological changes as a consequent, it appears as if it is a pretty dangerous substance.

2. Money: Okay, so you work for your own money so you can spend it how you like? Load of crap: When you wind up with one of the aforementioned chronic diseases, who is going to foot the bill? Probably the taxpayer. So: Use the drugs if you want, but don't go running to the govt to pay for your medical bill and give you welfare because you can't work a proper job anymore.

3. The peer influence: You might be happily puffing away with your friends and one of them not on drugs takes it for a spin. Congratulations, you have got another person addicted. (Don't use the non-addictive argument. You're all in denial. If it wasn't addictive you wouldn't be doing it)

4. Social problems: Marijuana alters your perception. That causes all kind of shit. Not only drug driving, but also assault and other crimes against people and property. (Yes, similar to alcohol. Alcohol is also bad.)

<snip>

2. Money: Okay, so you work for your own money so you can spend it how you like? Load of crap: When you wind up with one of the aforementioned chronic diseases, who is going to foot the bill? Probably the taxpayer. So: Use the drugs if you want, but don't go running to the govt to pay for your medical bill and give you welfare because you can't work a proper job anymore.

<snip>


This may be deviating a bit from the intended topic, but out of curiosity: if there is taxpayer funded medical care, then the individual in question is likely to be one of those taxpayers, and thus entitled to that care. Or is it that certain taxpayers which pay for this care shouldn't be allowed to have it unless all of the other taxpayers say it's all right?

Granted, if the individual has not payed any taxes, they definitely should not be able to access taxpayer funded care.

Maybe an opt-out or reduction in relevant taxes in exchange for not being able to access certain public funds?

This may be deviating a bit from the intended topic, but out of curiosity: if there is taxpayer funded medical care, then the individual in question is likely to be one of those taxpayers, and thus entitled to that care. Or is it that certain taxpayers which pay for this care shouldn't be allowed to have it unless all of the other taxpayers say it's all right?

Granted, if the individual has not payed any taxes, they definitely should not be able to access taxpayer funded care.

Maybe an opt-out or reduction in relevant taxes in exchange for not being able to access certain public funds?

In my opinion the public health care system is not for people with self inflicted conditions. It is for people who genuinely had little or no control over the illness of condition.

4. Social problems: Marijuana alters your perception. That causes all kind of shit. Not only drug driving, but also assault and other crimes against people and property. (Yes, similar to alcohol. Alcohol is also bad.)

Er... isn't Mary Jane notorious for making people the complete opposite of aggressive?

The Junta has been smoking pot for 20 years and I can tell you without a doubt pot is addictive.

Er... isn't Mary Jane notorious for making people the complete opposite of aggressive?

From my experience and from a very quick google to confirm it, Marijuana causes a amplification of the current emotional state. That is, if they are angry, they get angrier, if they are happy they get happier. Naturally, it affects different people in different ways. (Just like rum making some people completely angrssive, and others completely passive)

Quite honestly, marijuana is the most slandered and libeled plant by the American media and government. I was reading the above the influence website after seeing one of their outragous commericals (www.abovetheinfluence.com), and after seeing some "facts" about marijuana, I became increasingly fed up with the lies. I now vent my frustration to you, people of nationstates. Take this little fact


Little do they mention that the teens in "treatment" are there from a court order made on ignorant assumptions from marijuana. Judges keep sending to kids to treatment, because they think marijuana is addicting, and they think marijuana is addicting because there are so many kids in treatment, and there are so many kids in treatment because judges order them into treatment, because they think marijuana is addicting, because...

Thats only one thing though, I think this can explain it much better than I can.


http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5515#alleg2

And for those of you thinking "well it has to be illegal for a reason", and that reason be because of medical research and government hearings. Here is your real reason(can't post because of length)

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html

When are we goign to end this pointless and corprate sponcered war on a plant? Don't we have better things to spend our money on?

Marijuana is not a plant and there is no such thing as a "marijuana plant". The drug marijuana comes from the poppy plant, the same plant that one can use to make poppy seed cakes. Hardly slandered.

Marijuana is not a plant and there is no such thing as a "marijuana plant". The drug marijuana comes from the poppy plant, the same plant that one can use to make poppy seed cakes. Hardly slandered.

Thats Opium, Morphine and Heroin. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_poppy) Marajuana is a plant in and of itself. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_sativa)

I highly doubt corporations have any incentive to keep marijuana illegal, simply because there are plenty of people that smoke both tobacco and pot; I'm pretty sure they'd just be making even more money if they could tap this currently illegal market by supplying it with legal products at a competitive price.

The thing is, corporations tend to be pretty damn liberal when it comes to the products they're allowed to sell...the fewer regulations stopping them from selling their products, the better.

Marijuana is not a plant and there is no such thing as a "marijuana plant". The drug marijuana comes from the poppy plant, the same plant that one can use to make poppy seed cakes. Hardly slandered.

FAIL.

Most of the ignorant statements previous to yours I'll just ignore.

This one I just cant.

I truly hope that was sarcasm on your part.
If not...I suggest reading a book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana

Marijuana comes from the plant, "Cannabis Sativa", or "Cannibis Indica".

THIS is a poppy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_poppy

"Papaver somniferum is a species of plant with many sub-groups or varieties. Colors of the flower vary widely, as do other physical characteristics such as number and shape of petals, number of pods, production of morphine, etc."

Do yourself a favor and do not comment upon that wich you are ignorant.

From my experience and from a very quick google to confirm it, Marijuana causes a amplification of the current emotional state. That is, if they are angry, they get angrier, if they are happy they get happier. Naturally, it affects different people in different ways. (Just like rum making some people completely angrssive, and others completely passive)


Not true.

Weed is a depressant/hallucinagen.

Its a depressant, wich mainly means "its a mellowing buzz", with very, very mild hallucinagenic qualities.
Yes, weed CAN make you hallucinate mildly, but you have to smoke SHIT-TON of it to do so.

I only read the "The truth is" bit of the quote because I don't want to be here all day, but here are the issues with marijuana as I see them:
1. Chronic disease: I don't know what the actual risk factor was, but It causes the onset of emphysema earlier than smoking tobacco. Coupled with that are psychiatric issues such as schizophrenia and paranoia from overuse. Once you add in CVD, CHD and neurological changes as a consequent, it appears as if it is a pretty dangerous substance.


Wow. where do you guys get this stuff?

schizophrenia is a neurological disease. you cant "get it" from smoking pot. No matter how much pot you smoke. Period.
Paranoia, is extremely mild, and only comes from continual chronic overuse.
"weed makes you paranoid" is a common stereotype, made famous from such propoganda films as "reefer madness" wich also claims that the "marijuana BERRY is a dangerous narcotic".

As for emphysema, there arent any reliable sources in the American Journal of Medicine, wich accurately confirm this. In truth, smoking anything is not good for your lungs, but, its CERTAINLY NOT as dangerous as tobacco, wich has 100 times as many cancer-causing as cannabis.
IN FACT, a recent study showed that regular marijuana users who also smoke cigarretes, are generally 10% LESS likely to develop lung cancer than those who only smoke cigs.

This means its possible that marijuana smoking may decrease your likelyhood of getting cancer.


3. The peer influence: You might be happily puffing away with your friends and one of them not on drugs takes it for a spin. Congratulations, you have got another person addicted. (Don't use the non-addictive argument. You're all in denial. If it wasn't addictive you wouldn't be doing it)

Complete horseshit.
Marijuana simply isnt phsyically addictive, and only mentally addictive in folks who have addictive personalities. THAT means, that these same people get addicted to things like over-eating, or soda.



4. Social problems: Marijuana alters your perception. That causes all kind of shit. Not only drug driving, but also assault and other crimes against people and property. (Yes, similar to alcohol. Alcohol is also bad.)

The ONLY good point youve made in your entire post, is the use of it while driving.
I smoke it. But never while driving, ( or after, for that matter)
Driving under any influence is dumb.

However, assault?
Crimes against people?
Youve never smoked it have you?
Nobody gets high and robs a liquor store, unless they haul away a treasure trove of Doritos.

Depressant, remember?
Lethargy.

Marijuana, the world's most-used drug? Bwahahahahaha!
Alcohol, the world's most-used drug? Bwahahahahaha!
Unless "water" or "air" gets declared a drug", the #1 drug (at 5+ billion people) shall remain "religion".

Try caffiene. I dare say a pretty big percentage of adults in the western world wake up in the morning and have some coffee.

Marijuana, the world's most-used drug? Bwahahahahaha!
Alcohol, the world's most-used drug? Bwahahahahaha!
Unless "water" or "air" gets declared a drug", the #1 drug (at 5+ billion people) shall remain "religion".That's not a drug. That's just a lack of brain functions.

schizophrenia is a neurological disease. you cant "get it" from smoking pot. No matter how much pot you smoke. Period.
Paranoia, is extremely mild, and only comes from continual chronic overuse.
"weed makes you paranoid" is a common stereotype, made famous from such propoganda films as "reefer madness" wich also claims that the "marijuana BERRY is a dangerous narcotic".
I'm not questioning the rest of your criticisms, but there are still studies that suggest a correlation between the use of cannabis and the occurrence of schizophrenic symptoms in people genetically predisposed towards it. Although this doesn't mean that you'll "Get it" by smoking pot, it certainly suggests that if you already have a mild and otherwise harmless version of it, you'll probably be making it worse.

tl;dr, too busy toting pot

I find this whole thing incredibly hypocritical. Politics demonise soft-drugs like weed and magic mushrooms, but hard-drugs like nicotine and alcohol are completly legal and accepted. In Holland, they just completly banned magic mushrooms (wich is incredibly odd because you can find them in the wild) after the death of a couple of tourists. The idiots first got themself drunk and thén ate a mushroom, not that odd then that they freaked out. So because a couple of idiots killed themself by doing really stupid things, it's banned, but I don't want to know how many people kill themselfs from alcohol and nicotine but that ís legal. Retarted government...

Quite honestly, marijuana is the most slandered and libeled plant by the American media and government.<snip>


Man far too long to retain my interest, I will just say though I found it quite funny, how you start by using a quote to say how Mj is addictive, and then you fail totaly to give us your reasons why you disagree with it, and instead give us some circular thing about it being addicted because of the amount of people in rehab.

I have a policy; legalise everything, and then when people complain that we've gone too far and want to to re-criminalise things, we shoot them.

I have a policy; legalise everything, and then when people complain that we've gone too far and want to to re-criminalise things, we shoot them.

I'm with you, cept the shooting bit.

I'm with you, cept the shooting bit.

I meant everything. Murder, rape, robbery, the lot.

I meant everything. Murder, rape, robbery, the lot.

No no no no, I'm merely talking about recreational substance use.

Why is it that new posters always make pot threads?

I smoke all the time. I know a lot of the facts. And, after all my ranting threads, I'm sure half the people on here know the facts too.

The whole conversation is growing old.

Why is it that new posters always make pot threads?

I smoke all the time. I know a lot of the facts. And, after all my ranting threads, I'm sure half the people on here know the facts too.

The whole conversation is growing old.

Old like.......mould?

I find this whole thing incredibly hypocritical. Politics demonise soft-drugs like weed and magic mushrooms, but hard-drugs like nicotine and alcohol are completly legal and accepted. In Holland, they just completly banned magic mushrooms (wich is incredibly odd because you can find them in the wild) after the death of a couple of tourists. The idiots first got themself drunk and thén ate a mushroom, not that odd then that they freaked out. So because a couple of idiots killed themself by doing really stupid things, it's banned, but I don't want to know how many people kill themselfs from alcohol and nicotine but that ís legal. Retarted government...

There's no such thing as "hard" and "soft" drugs, and if there were, nicotine is "soft" and shrooms are "hard". Tobacco grows in the dirt. Shrooms grow in the dirt. Weed grows in the dirt. Just because you can find them in the wild doesn't mean they're "soft" drugs. Alcohol can occur naturally, and while alcohol can be lethal, magic mushrooms aren't exactly safe, and neither are pot or cigarettes.

As "retarded" as the government might be, you're certainly not one to comment.

I find this whole thing incredibly hypocritical. Politics demonise soft-drugs like weed and magic mushrooms, but hard-drugs like nicotine and alcohol are completly legal and accepted. In Holland, they just completly banned magic mushrooms (wich is incredibly odd because you can find them in the wild) after the death of a couple of tourists. The idiots first got themself drunk and thén ate a mushroom, not that odd then that they freaked out. So because a couple of idiots killed themself by doing really stupid things, it's banned, but I don't want to know how many people kill themselfs from alcohol and nicotine but that ís legal. Retarted government...

There's no such thing as "hard" and "soft" drugs, and if there were, nicotine is "soft" and shrooms are "hard". Tobacco grows in the dirt. Shrooms grow in the dirt. Weed grows in the dirt. Just because you can find them in the wild doesn't mean they're "soft" drugs. Alcohol can occur naturally, and while alcohol can be lethal, magic mushrooms aren't exactly safe, and neither are pot or cigarettes.

As "retarded" as the government might be, you're certainly not one to comment.

There's no such thing as "hard" and "soft" drugs, and if there were, nicotine is "soft" and shrooms are "hard". Tobacco grows in the dirt. Shrooms grow in the dirt. Weed grows in the dirt. Just because you can find them in the wild doesn't mean they're "soft" drugs. Alcohol can occur naturally, and while alcohol can be lethal, magic mushrooms aren't exactly safe, and neither are pot or cigarettes.
Yes, there is a difference between hard and soft drugs. That's why the terms are invented in the first place. The difference is mainly seen in physical addiction (and has nothing to do with the fact that they grow naturally or not), wich is why nicotine is a hard drug and shrooms are a soft drug. However, it's not a super-fixed line on what is a hard drug and what's not, there are some clear characteristics however.
About safety, that depends on how well you use. It's really safe when you just use them like they're supposed to be used, in a controlled enviroment and certainly nót in combination with alcohol (wich was the reason the tourists flipped out, they used shrooms toghether with alcohol). The fact if it's safe or not, really depends on how well the retailer informs you. That's what perhaps lacked here in Holland, and instead of enforcing better information on those things they banned them all toghether.
As "retarded" as the government might be, you're certainly not one to comment.
Care to explain?

Drug laws are, like most laws these days, designed either to generate income for the State or increase control over individuals with this nanny state business. The real slam-dunk politicians are the ones who can manage both with one shot.

Do I smoke pot? No. Have I ever? No. Do I give a wet fart if someone else does? No.

Regardless of what problems may or may not arise from the use of marijuana it's still pretty frakin' far down the list of things to beware of in this day and age. I'd rather discover a joint in one of my kids' room than a bottle of liquor. I find alcohol to be vastly more problematic.

So should it be decriminalized? Yes. I've got the Government looking over my shoulder enough as it is, thanks very much.

I only read the "The truth is" bit of the quote because I don't want to be here all day, but here are the issues with marijuana as I see them:
1. Chronic disease: I don't know what the actual risk factor was, but It causes the onset of emphysema earlier than smoking tobacco. Coupled with that are psychiatric issues such as schizophrenia and paranoia from overuse. Once you add in CVD, CHD and neurological changes as a consequent, it appears as if it is a pretty dangerous substance.

Source? (And I mean a reliable one, not a propaganda film.)


2. Money: Okay, so you work for your own money so you can spend it how you like? Load of crap: When you wind up with one of the aforementioned chronic diseases, who is going to foot the bill? Probably the taxpayer. So: Use the drugs if you want, but don't go running to the govt to pay for your medical bill and give you welfare because you can't work a proper job anymore.

By that argument, people who get cancer from smoking, or have liver problems from drinking, or have a heart attack from being overweight shouldn't get access to healthcare. That's stupid. If you pay your taxes, you pay for your right to healthcare (assuming you live in a civilized country with universal healthcare, that is.) Anyway, objective evidence (as has been quoted earlier) shows that marijuana is less harmful than is tobacco or alcohol, both of which are legal.

3. The peer influence: You might be happily puffing away with your friends and one of them not on drugs takes it for a spin. Congratulations, you have got another person addicted.
Er, no. For one, marijuana is not physically addictive. Secondly, this could also be an argument against legal tobacco, or hell, most MMORPGs, which are incredibly addictive.

(Don't use the non-addictive argument. You're all in denial. If it wasn't addictive you wouldn't be doing it)

Epic fail.
"Don't say that ping pong is not addictive. If it wasn't addictive you wouldn't be doing it."
You see, people often do things that they enjoy, even without being addicted. Many people enjoy smoking marijuana. I know I have on a few occasions. (And no, I'm not addicted. I rarely smoke it anyway. I think the last time was... a month or two ago.)
Indeed, many people willingly quit marijuana when they realize that they're going to have to raise a family-- something that tobacco smokers are almost never able to do.
I won't deny that weed can be psychologically addicting, but so can just about anything. Hell, World of Warcraft and other MMORPGS, as I mentioned earlier, are well-known for it. Should we ban them, too? (Actually, I find that they're more addicting than weed is, and less fun... but that's personal experience :D)

4. Social problems: Marijuana alters your perception. That causes all kind of shit. Not only drug driving, but also assault and other crimes against people and property. (Yes, similar to alcohol. Alcohol is also bad.)
Yes, driving under the influence is fucking stupid and should be illegal. We already have DUI laws, do we not? Though, personal experience tells me that people who are high are less likely to get behind the wheel than people who are drunk. But that's personal anecdote, so take it for a grain of salt.
And weed causing assault and other crimes? I call bullshit. It's well known for mellowing people out, and this is a well-deserved reputation.

Hm. Two things in this post have now interested me that I think would make interesting studies:
1) Comparing the psychological addictiveness of common psychological addictions--MMORPGs --to marijuana.
2) Comparing how likely people are to get behind the wheel of a car when high to how likely they are to do so when drunk.

3. The peer influence: You might be happily puffing away with your friends and one of them not on drugs takes it for a spin. Congratulations, you have got another person addicted. (Don't use the non-addictive argument. You're all in denial. If it wasn't addictive you wouldn't be doing it)

Thats a crock of BS. First of all, doing something once, with a few exceptions, does not cause auto addiction.


Secondly, they do it because they like it. The arguement "Zomg if it wasnt addictive you wouldnt be doin it!" is fucking stupid. I drink water all the time. Is water addictive? I play PS3 a lot. Is PS3 addictive? People can do things because they like them without them being addictive.

You are the one in denial. Half of the posts on this thread are utter fail.

Secondly, they do it because they like it. The arguement "Zomg if it wasnt addictive you wouldnt be doin it!" is fucking stupid. I drink water all the time. Is water addictive? I play PS3 a lot. Is PS3 addictive? People can do things because they like them without them being addictive.


Of course it's not addictive...


...you can't play EverQuest on a PS3.

I'm not questioning the rest of your criticisms, but there are still studies that suggest a correlation between the use of cannabis and the occurrence of schizophrenic symptoms in people genetically predisposed towards it. Although this doesn't mean that you'll "Get it" by smoking pot, it certainly suggests that if you already have a mild and otherwise harmless version of it, you'll probably be making it worse.

Bolded part is key.

Why is it that new posters always make pot threads?

I smoke all the time. I know a lot of the facts. And, after all my ranting threads, I'm sure half the people on here know the facts too.

The whole conversation is growing old.

Did someone force you to click on the topic?

Of course it's not addictive...


...you can't play EverQuest on a PS3.

Touche:p

Drug laws are, like most laws these days, designed either to generate income for the State or increase control over individuals with this nanny state business. The real slam-dunk politicians are the ones who can manage both with one shot.

Do I smoke pot? No. Have I ever? No. Do I give a wet fart if someone else does? No.

Regardless of what problems may or may not arise from the use of marijuana it's still pretty frakin' far down the list of things to beware of in this day and age. I'd rather discover a joint in one of my kids' room than a bottle of liquor. I find alcohol to be vastly more problematic.

So should it be decriminalized? Yes. I've got the Government looking over my shoulder enough as it is, thanks very much.

I agree.
Though, if, FSM forbid, I am ever a father, I plan to introduce my children to alcohol (and weed, if they want) at a fairly young age(at the very latest, before they leave for college), so that when they get older it's no big deal and they know their limits. Also, I think that will make them more comfortable with admitting that they've been drinking so that they won't try to hide it when they drink-- they'll be more willing to call me for a ride home when drunk instead of trying to drive home themselves. I'd be damn proud of them for being responsible in that situation. Hell, if I couldn't drive them, I'd gladly pay for their cab.

In general, I think being open with your kids is a good idea-- whether it's about drugs, sex, or whatever. Let them know the facts and encourage them to be safe.

*snip*

I completely agree. The whole drug war is a result of the lobbying of the prison-court-police (among other groups) complex, not an actual desire to protect people. If they were actually out to help people, they would stop it just like they stopped Prohibition, allow medical research onto controlled substances, and end the massive fiscal burden and human suffering that the drug war causes.

Wow. where do you guys get this stuff?

schizophrenia is a neurological disease. you cant "get it" from smoking pot. No matter how much pot you smoke. Period.
Paranoia, is extremely mild, and only comes from continual chronic overuse.
"weed makes you paranoid" is a common stereotype, made famous from such propoganda films as "reefer madness" wich also claims that the "marijuana BERRY is a dangerous narcotic".

<Snip>



Having suffered for 3 years from a Psychosis triggerd by way to much of the 'good stuff' I can tell you now that all that THC etc you are getting into your system can and will after an undetermined amount of time trigger a mental illness.

You sir Fail epically. You don't get a mental illness in the normal sense of catching a cold or a flu bug.. you trigger it with life situations, chemichals and other medical factors!

Did someone force you to click on the topic?

The topic is "I'm tired of these lies".

Yes, there is a difference between hard and soft drugs. That's why the terms are invented in the first place. The difference is mainly seen in physical addiction (and has nothing to do with the fact that they grow naturally or not), wich is why nicotine is a hard drug and shrooms are a soft drug. However, it's not a super-fixed line on what is a hard drug and what's not, there are some clear characteristics however.
About safety, that depends on how well you use. It's really safe when you just use them like they're supposed to be used, in a controlled enviroment and certainly nót in combination with alcohol (wich was the reason the tourists flipped out, they used shrooms toghether with alcohol). The fact if it's safe or not, really depends on how well the retailer informs you. That's what perhaps lacked here in Holland, and instead of enforcing better information on those things they banned them all toghether.

Care to explain?

Nicotine is not a hard drug. The terms weren't "invented". They're not scientific in any way.

Shrooms - without the consumption of alcohol - still make people "flip out".

There should be more information, and I never disagreed with that, but I think still you're retarded.

Marijuana users aren't demonized by anyone. If anything, the popular culture embraces marijuana use. You can't watch t.v. or a comedy for more than a few minutes without hearing some reference to marijuana - I've never touched the stuff, but I'm pretty sick of hearing about it in movies and on t.v., to be honest. I voted against legalization once, I think, but that might've been medical. I can't really remember.

So you voted against medical marijuana or recreational marijuana use because you are sick of hearing about it on TV and movies?

That's just as idiotic as saying you are sick of hearing about conservatives and religion on TV and in the movies. I think I'll vote to have them all imprisoned or deported.

Also in the same post you say that marijuana users aren't demonized by ANYONE! When the OP gives us a link to a site that's all about demonizing pot users while ignoring heavy addictive health endangering drugs like meth and heroin.

Have you been drinking today? Why do you hate freedom? They don't let govt. officials from Iran post on this message board do they?

No one can argue that marijuana alters your intelligence, attention, emotional state, and even reflexes, in a way that makes it very different from water or clean air. It is a drug, this can not be denied, trying to say either of those two is a lie is pretty damn stupid.

With that in mind, and the fact that it stinks almost as bad as tobacco, as far as I'm concerned it should be illegal completely for recreational use. I can see medical use, not through smoking but better means, as viable and legal, but not recreational use. I'd personally like to see recreational users simply shot, but I don't think that will ever happen.

And yes, I would happily apply the same to alcohol and tobacco, I really hate tobacco.

And I'll leave on this note. You want to do it to feel good? If you need to inhale or otherwise ingest some chemical substance your body was not designed around, like food and air and water, to "feel good", you need to grow up and get a life. There are better, cheaper, easier ways to enjoy yourself.

I'll agree that you have the right to smoke pot recreationally if you agree that if you harm any other person, directly or indirectly while under its influence, society has the right to sentence you to be carved up and your organs donated to various hospitals.

That goes for any other "recreational" drug as well.

everyone should live like Dostanuot Loj does because what is right for her is right for everyone. That's real freedom of choice right there. How dare different people have different likes and dislikes. She is right to suggest that anyone who gets pleasure from chocolate get shot. The endorphin rush you get is nothing but a drug! Did you know that gluten works like an opiate? The withdrawals will prove it. Any of you that enjoy gluten are not living the way nature intended and so should grow up and get a life prescribed by the cheerful Dostanuot Loj.

I'll agree that you have the right to smoke pot recreationally if you agree that if you harm any other person, directly or indirectly while under its influence, society has the right to sentence you to be carved up and your organs donated to various hospitals.

That goes for any other "recreational" drug as well.

Wouldn't jail time be appropriate? I'd go for marijuana DUI laws

Wouldn't jail time be appropriate? I'd go for marijuana DUI laws
You only get the drugs if you make the DUI laws nastier. That's the nature of compromise. You get a little, you give a little.

everyone should live like Dostanuot Loj does because what is right for her is right for everyone. That's real freedom of choice right there. How dare different people have different likes and dislikes. She is right to suggest that anyone who gets pleasure from chocolate get shot. The endorphin rush you get is nothing but a drug! Did you know that gluten works like an opiate? The withdrawals will prove it. Any of you that enjoy gluten are not living the way nature intended and so should grow up and get a life prescribed by the cheerful Dostanuot Loj.

See, you just proved my point. I can be happy and enjoy myself reading your post right there.

You only get the drugs if you make the DUI laws nastier. That's the nature of compromise. You get a little, you give a little.

Okay I'll agree to those terms if you and Dostanuot Loj live the rest of your lives on water and oxygen alone.

See, you just proved my point. I can be happy and enjoy myself reading your post right there.

I proved your point? What point? That people can be happy living your life since we are all the same and should like the same things? That's not a point... Thats delusion.

Okay I'll agree to those terms if you and Dostanuot Loj live the rest of your lives on water and oxygen alone.

Are you trying to outdo Billy Madison for logical reasoning, or do you have some reason you think actually makes sense for equating life-essential proteins and amino acide with completely unnecessary-for-survival-or-comfort pharmaceuticals?

Are you trying to outdo Billy Madison for logical reasoning, or do you have some reason you think actually makes sense for equating life-essential proteins and amino acide with completely unnecessary-for-survival-or-comfort pharmaceuticals?


Yeah, I think people should have the right to live their life however they see fit provided they don't infringe on anybody else's right to do the same.

I also believe that in this crappy world, some people need an escape - drugs and alcohol provide a great escape.

You go ahead and deal with your life however you want. You want to use religion, video games, books or suicide to get a break from your thoughts (provided they are as depressing as mine) then go ahead. I am a proponent of freedom. I'd rather live happily in a daze than sober as a slave to someone else's wishes.

I proved your point? What point? That people can be happy living your life since we are all the same and should like the same things? That's not a point... Thats delusion.

You obviously missed my point then. Let's try it clearer.

If you need drugs to be happy and enjoy yourself, get a life. There are plenty of things in life that allow you to enjoy yourself. Like when people make funny mistakes, bike rides, comedy, movies, TV, swimming, fishing, and a huge list of other stuff that I don't want to think of. I like some of it, I don't like more of it. That doesn't mean it's not out there to be done for you to enjoy.

Marijuana users aren't demonized by anyone. If anything, the popular culture embraces marijuana use. You can't watch t.v. or a comedy for more than a few minutes without hearing some reference to marijuana - I've never touched the stuff, but I'm pretty sick of hearing about it in movies and on t.v., to be honest. I voted against legalization once, I think, but that might've been medical. I can't really remember.

I don't know if that was the point he was trying to make. It's not a matter of the distinction between popular culture and how you see it. The issue is that legally the US incarcerates more people for drug crimes than any other industrialized nation. While we'd like to believe there are a ton of Pablo Escobar's out there, this is not the truth. Most people are arrested for simple possession (listed as possession of a controlled substance, a narcotic, under 50 grams). Cases above 50g is intent to distribute. My thought is that if you want to do drugs it matters not to me. If you hurt someone as a result of your intoxication you should be punished just like with alcohol. It's more of the Puritanical bullshit I talked about in the thread about Miley Sirus.

You obviously missed my point then. Let's try it clearer.

If you need drugs to be happy and enjoy yourself, get a life. There are plenty of things in life that allow you to enjoy yourself. Like when people make funny mistakes, bike rides, comedy, movies, TV, swimming, fishing, and a huge list of other stuff that I don't want to think of. I like some of it, I don't like more of it. That doesn't mean it's not out there to be done for you to enjoy.


I can enjoy those things on drugs a lot more. Just because you aren't depressed constantly doesn't mean other people aren't. Pot helps me to relax, lose tons of anxiety (which helps me eat) and giggle at silly things (since my deep dark depression disappears). I use it medicinally and recreationally.

I have a life, a wife, a sex life that other people only fantasize about, a home, career, friends, family, a business that I am hoping will be successful and I enjoy marijuana.

If you don't like it then live your life how you want but don't infringe on other peoples rights to live theirs how they wish. You do infringe on such things when you support bans on drugs, gambling, and whatever else people do that only harm themselves. What is good for you is great... FOR YOU, but sounds like the most boring depressing life I could possibly imagine.

Having alcohol legal doesn't make you drink. So don't drink. You don't want it or need it. Splendid. I'm happy for you if you are happy with your life. Get the hell out of my life if you want to control what I do with it... m'kay?

I can enjoy those things on drugs a lot more. Just because you aren't depressed constantly doesn't mean other people aren't. Pot helps me to relax, lose tons of anxiety (which helps me eat) and giggle at silly things (since my deep dark depression disappears). I use it medicinally and recreationally.

I have a life, a wife, a sex life that other people only fantasize about, a home, career, friends, family, a business that I am hoping will be successful and I enjoy marijuana.

If you don't like it then live your life how you want but don't infringe on other peoples rights to live theirs how they wish. You do infringe on such things when you support bans on drugs, gambling, and whatever else people do that only harm themselves. What is good for you is great... FOR YOU, but sounds like the most boring depressing life I could possibly imagine.

Having alcohol legal doesn't make you drink. So don't drink. You don't want it or need it. Splendid. I'm happy for you if you are happy with your life. Get the hell out of my life if you want to control what I do with it... m'kay?

So you feel you need drugs to be happy?
Well, keep thinking your life is great then, because obviously if you feel you need drugs to be happy (A far cry from actually needing antidepressants to function) then your life is not so good as you think. I have the ability to make my life good, and enjoy it as I wish, so do you, even though you choose not to.

And last time I checked, second hand smoke isn't something that only affects the user. And unless you're the weirdest drug user I have ever talked to and only do it alone in a sealed room with a filtration system, or you do it through means other then smoking in a carefully controlled way, then you're still pushing it on other people. You have a family you say? Children I assume? If so, and you do that in your house or anywhere near them, you're pushing it on them. That goes for anything like that (Once again, especially tobacco).

The argument that it only affects you only works if you're alone in the middle of nowhere and have no family. The side effects of the substance on you and what you do under inflouance affects them, the side effects of how you do the substance, like smoking it, affects them, what happens to you when you're under the influence, affects them.

Yeah, I think people should have the right to live their life however they see fit provided they don't infringe on anybody else's right to do the same.


We agree on this, just not on how much you should be punished when you DO infringe.


I also believe that in this crappy world, some people need an escape - drugs and alcohol provide a great escape.
Yes to the first, no to the second.

Drugs and alcohol are not escapes, they're detours. When they wear off, your crap life is still there. They don't improve your life, in fact they encourage its further decay.

There are many other escapes that are actually constructive, and can actually improve your quality of life. But it does take a certain small amount of strength to use them.

You go ahead and deal with your life however you want. You want to use religion, video games, books or suicide to get a break from your thoughts (provided they are as depressing as mine) then go ahead.

I've already abandoned all of those except books. Books have vastly improved my quality of life and the physical conditions in which I live.

I am a proponent of freedom. I'd rather live happily in a daze than sober as a slave to someone else's wishes.

Then you are no proponent of freedom at all. You are, instead, a slave to many more things. Your false escape, those who supply it to you, as well as to the circumstances and thoughts you wish to escape from. Because they'll still be there when you are not stoned.

I can enjoy those things on drugs a lot more. Just because you aren't depressed constantly doesn't mean other people aren't. Pot helps me to relax, lose tons of anxiety (which helps me eat) and giggle at silly things (since my deep dark depression disappears). I use it medicinally and recreationally.

I have a life, a wife, a sex life that other people only fantasize about, a home, career, friends, family, a business that I am hoping will be successful and I enjoy marijuana.

If you don't like it then live your life how you want but don't infringe on other peoples rights to live theirs how they wish. You do infringe on such things when you support bans on drugs, gambling, and whatever else people do that only harm themselves. What is good for you is great... FOR YOU, but sounds like the most boring depressing life I could possibly imagine.

Having alcohol legal doesn't make you drink. So don't drink. You don't want it or need it. Splendid. I'm happy for you if you are happy with your life. Get the hell out of my life if you want to control what I do with it... m'kay?
See, I feel marijuana and other drugs have made the hard work I put into daydreaming, not working, and being mellow in general, cheaper. It's especially sad the number of children who, when they discover their slacker heroes smoke pot, try to emulate them to reach those levels of mediocre excellence.

So you feel you need drugs to be happy?
Well, keep thinking your life is great then, because obviously if you feel you need drugs to be happy (A far cry from actually needing antidepressants to function) then your life is not so good as you think. I have the ability to make my life good, and enjoy it as I wish, so do you, even though you choose not to.

And last time I checked, second hand smoke isn't something that only affects the user. And unless you're the weirdest drug user I have ever talked to and only do it alone in a sealed room with a filtration system, or you do it through means other then smoking in a carefully controlled way, then you're still pushing it on other people. You have a family you say? Children I assume? If so, and you do that in your house or anywhere near them, you're pushing it on them. That goes for anything like that (Once again, especially tobacco).

The argument that it only affects you only works if you're alone in the middle of nowhere and have no family. The side effects of the substance on you and what you do under inflouance affects them, the side effects of how you do the substance, like smoking it, affects them, what happens to you when you're under the influence, affects them.


No I don't have kids, as I don't think it would be right to bring a child into this world. It's a horrible place. No I don't smoke pot around people who aren't smoking unless they choose to be in the same room I am in . Yes, I actually do have a room in my house where I smoke pot and do not do so in the rest of my home, also I blow my hits out of the window on the second floor, and I smoke with a vaporizer which is the cleanest way to smoke. It doesn't burn the material at all so no carcinogens there. My wife is the only person I live with and she smokes it too.

I'm a productive member of society, I pay taxes and I should be able to live my life how I see fit provided I don't stop anyone else from living their lives as they see fit. I've gone to jail for it but still I do it because I am not a slave to the whims of other people. You should do what you want with your life and your body too. I am not suggesting anything you like to do be banned. Bike riders have hurt other people physically. You like bike rides right? I don't want to ban bikes. See how I support your nasty destructive habit?

We agree on this, just not on how much you should be punished when you DO infringe.


Yes to the first, no to the second.

Drugs and alcohol are not escapes, they're detours. When they wear off, your crap life is still there. They don't improve your life, in fact they encourage its further decay.

There are many other escapes that are actually constructive, and can actually improve your quality of life. But it does take a certain small amount of strength to use them.



I've already abandoned all of those except books. Books have vastly improved my quality of life and the physical conditions in which I live.



Then you are no proponent of freedom at all. You are, instead, a slave to many more things. Your false escape, those who supply it to you, as well as to the circumstances and thoughts you wish to escape from. Because they'll still be there when you are not stoned.


Noone lives forever, I'm just staying stoned until I can happily die and leave this planet. No more problems with depression then!

I also enjoy books. Good for you :)

I'm no slave to drugs, drugs are my friends and teach me a lot. You should listen to drugs sometime. They can give you a lot of insight about yourself as well as the rest of the world.

I've gone to jail for it but still I do it because I am not a slave to the whims of other people.

Yes, you are.

See, I feel marijuana and other drugs have made the hard work I put into daydreaming, not working, and being mellow in general, cheaper. It's especially sad the number of children who, when they discover their slacker heroes smoke pot, try to emulate them to reach those levels of mediocre excellence.


Hard work is for fake slackers. Pot is the easy way into slacking and just what a true slacker needs

Yes, you are.

No, I'm not.


I could do this all day.

I'm no slave to drugs, drugs are my friends and teach me a lot. You should listen to drugs sometime. They can give you a lot of insight about yourself as well as the rest of the world.

Full disclosure:

In my youth (which wasn't all that long ago), I tried a few drugs.

I found the experience to be, in all respects, vastly inferior to what I could achieve without them, with costs and risks that greatly outweighed any perceived (but in hindsight, probably nonexistent) benefits.

I also watched several promising people start using drugs and gradually turn into useless lumps of protoplasm - while still mistakenly believing that they were contributing members of society.

No, I'm not.


I could do this all day.


You produce all your own drugs, then? Or do you buy from someone, someone whose whims you are obviously then subject to?

And should your employer learn you use? Are you subject to their whims as to your terms of employment?

Full disclosure:

In my youth (which wasn't all that long ago), I tried a few drugs.

I found the experience to be, in all respects, vastly inferior to what I could achieve without them, with costs and risks that greatly outweighed any perceived (but in hindsight, probably nonexistent) benefits.

I also watched several promising people start using drugs and gradually turn into useless lumps of protoplasm - while still mistakenly believing that they were contributing members of society.

Well I hope you all own up to the choices you made. I'm glad yous topped doing things that you couldn't handle. It's called personal responsibility. I have it and exercise it. If I made a mad choice I don't blame anyone but myself. If I hurt someone else in the process then I have a debt to pay and I don't deny that.

I've watched idiots make bad choices too... I shouldn't suffer because of their mistakes.

I'm glad you can use meditation to achieve enlightenment. Good job Buddha!

Bolded part is key.
It may be an explicit qualification, but it's important enough to bear in mind: a lot of people fall under the heading of "genetically predisposed", but you're not necessarily going to know whether or not you are until after the fact. I'm not suggesting that's enough to get it banned outright - indeed, if you're not susceptible to its negative effects, I see no reason to stop you having it - but I do think it's wise to recommend people to be cautious around the stuff.

You produce all your own drugs, then? Or do you buy from someone, someone whose whims you are obviously then subject to?

And should your employer learn you use? Are you subject to their whims as to your terms of employment?



Well I was growing my own until I went to jail for it. Shrooms and Pot (I didn't sell it).

Because I purchase pot from someone else now doesn't make me a slave. That's silly. Thats like saying you are a slave to Albertsons when you go buy food. I have a demand and my pot connects have a supply. That's just a matter of circumstance.

should my employer learn I use pot? I'm pretty sure he already knows - it's not a huge secret or anything. People get fired for their political affiliation. We are all subject to the whims of others in that regard but I can also go find another job so my life, health, happiness doesn't depend on my employer.

It may be an explicit qualification, but it's important enough to bear in mind: a lot of people fall under the heading of "genetically predisposed", but you're not necessarily going to know whether or not you are until after the fact. I'm not suggesting that's enough to get it banned outright - indeed, if you're not susceptible to its negative effects, I see no reason to stop you having it - but I do think it's wise to recommend people to be cautious around the stuff.

Agreed, education is important. When there is a potential danger to anything that someone is about to do then they should definitely be educated on it first.

No, the most pervasive drug is oxygen. Reportedly as easy to acquire as air itself, oxygen has a 100% addiction rate. Symptoms are unknown, as a non-addict has never been observed. Worst of all, if an addict goes for more than a few minutes without a hit, they die.

Well I hope you all own up to the choices you made. You have no idea.

I'm glad yous topped doing things that you couldn't handle. Handling it never entered into it. I just don't do things that waste my time - well, except argue with you, but at least that's an intellectual exercise.


I'm glad you can use meditation to achieve enlightenment. Good job Buddha!

Well, you're half-right. Actually, why I meditate has a lot more to do with other people's health than it does with my own. I've never reached "enlightenment," and the only time I ever had a vision, no drugs at all were involved (rather, it was a process of self-denial rather than self-indulgence.)

On the other hand, it's been 15 years since the last time I really lost my temper.

You have no idea.

Handling it never entered into it. I just don't do things that waste my time - well, except argue with you, but at least that's an intellectual exercise.



Well, you're half-right. Actually, why I meditate has a lot more to do with other people's health than it does with my own. I've never reached "enlightenment," and the only time I ever had a vision, no drugs at all were involved (rather, it was a process of self-denial rather than self-indulgence.)

On the other hand, it's been 15 years since the last time I really lost my temper.



You've got a real connection to what it takes to make a healthy society run. Especially your suggestion that if a pot smoker somehow 'indirectly hurts' someone they should be killed and have their organs harvested. That takes some major intellectual exercise to build up enough mental muscle to come up with a compassionate argument like that. I'm glad my dumbed down lizard brain sedated on THC is too lazy to work out THAT hard.

Because I purchase pot from someone else now doesn't make me a slave. That's silly. Thats like saying you are a slave to Albertsons when you go buy food.
That IS was I'm saying, and it's true, too. You don't set the price of your food. You have a limited choice of where to shop for food, but unless you grow your own, you still have your freedom limited by the desires of others.

Freedom exists in direct inverse proprtion to the extent upon which you depend upon others. The more you depend upon others, the less free you are.

Total personal freedom is exceedingly rare, and cannot honestly be claimed in a society as interdependent as ours (hermits, and isolated frontier folks come closest to achieving total freedom.)

Me, I grew up on a farm. I also spent time in the Boy Scouts, with a serious leader. I know enough that I could live off the land in most vegetated places. I learned many skills that increase my freedom quotient. (OTOH, I know nothing about automotive repair, while my brother focused in that area. I chose dependency in that arena - I am not free when it comes to my car.)


I have a demand and my pot connects have a supply. That's just a matter of circumstance.
And if your supply dries up, or your connections get busted? How long before this affects your functioning? You are at their disposal.

That's my point. You're not actually "free" (you were technically freer when you grew your own, but since you don't do that anymore...). And if your freedom really isn't being increased by this activity... why bother?

You've got a real connection to what it takes to make a healthy society run. Especially your suggestion that if a pot smoker somehow 'indirectly hurts' someone they should be killed and have their organs harvested. That takes some major intellectual exercise to build up enough mental muscle to come up with a compassionate argument like that. I'm glad my dumbed down lizard brain sedated on THC is too lazy to work out THAT hard.

I never claimed that I held the compassionate moral high ground, nor any other. I don't even believe in a moral high ground.

Now, if you want my definition of "indirectly hurts," I can provide it to you. Because I've witnessed it... for example, a child whose pothead parents can't be bothered to summon up the activity level necessary to care for it, clean it, dress it, even sometimes feed it.

And yeah, if you neglect your own child, you deserve to be used for spare parts. You'll do more good that way.

Now, you say you have no kids, and don't want any. Fine then, you've got very little to worry about. By your own insistence don't engage in any of those punishable behaviors, therefore there's no harm in agreeing.

That IS was I'm saying, and it's true, too. You don't set the price of your food. You have a limited choice of where to shop for food, but unless you grow your own, you still have your freedom limited by the desires of others.

Freedom exists in direct inverse proprtion to the extent upon which you depend upon others. The more you depend upon others, the less free you are.

Total personal freedom is exceedingly rare, and cannot honestly be claimed in a society as interdependent as ours (hermits, and isolated frontier folks come closest to achieving total freedom.)

Me, I grew up on a farm. I also spent time in the Boy Scouts, with a serious leader. I know enough that I could live off the land in most vegetated places. I learned many skills that increase my freedom quotient. (OTOH, I know nothing about automotive repair, while my brother focused in that area. I chose dependency in that arena - I am not free when it comes to my car.)

And if your supply dries up, or your connections get busted? How long before this affects your functioning? You are at their disposal.

That's my point. You're not actually "free" (you were technically freer when you grew your own, but since you don't do that anymore...). And if your freedom really isn't being increased by this activity... why bother?


Well thats a boring intellectual exercise that really has no bearing on whether pot should be legal or not or how it's use affects those around us. Yes we all have some dependency or other... and?

So what if one connect dries up? There are thousands of them out there. And I am prepared to grow again if I have too but there is less risk in buying it from someone else and there are so many choices of people to purchase from that it's really more free to go that direction since there is little chance of not having a connect.

Besides I plan on moving to another country in a few years where pot is either legal or so freely available that it might as well be legal. I'm a big fan of populist govt's that don't want to be involved in every little aspect of our lives. I loved Holland.

I never claimed that I held the compassionate moral high ground, nor any other. I don't even believe in a moral high ground.

Now, if you want my definition of "indirectly hurts," I can provide it to you. Because I've witnessed it... for example, a child whose pothead parents can't be bothered to summon up the activity level necessary to care for it, clean it, dress it, even sometimes feed it.

And yeah, if you neglect your own child, you deserve to be used for spare parts. You'll do more good that way.

Now, you say you have no kids, and don't want any. Fine then, you've got very little to worry about. By your own insistence don't engage in any of those punishable behaviors, therefore there's no harm in agreeing.

I call shenanigans - Every parent I've known who smoked pot were the coolest parents I knew and had really good healthy kids. Kids who don't get fed will die and those parents already get punished. You draw up the all of the parameters of how pot smoking hurts others and we'll rochambeau on each point.

Well thats a boring intellectual exercise that really has no bearing on whether pot should be legal or not or how it's use affects those around us. Yes we all have some dependency or other... and? And therefore the argument that you are somehow freer because you are "slave to no one's whims" fails.

there is less risk in buying it from someone else and there are so many choices of people to purchase from that it's really more free to go that direction since there is little chance of not having a connect. Then its' easier and safer. Neither of which actually equates to freer.

Besides I plan on moving to another country in a few years where pot is either legal or so freely available that it might as well be legal. I'm a big fan of populist govt's that don't want to be involved in every little aspect of our lives. I loved Holland. Say hi to the luluboomers. You know they've banned the mushrooms, right? Just a couple of days ago.

And therefore the argument that you are somehow freer because you are "slave to no one's whims" fails.

I'll concede that there are things society forces us to do unless we want to live as a sasquatch, then we are only at the whim of mother nature. Still I guess we have that choice (sort of) so freedom? FREEDOMMMMMMMMMMMMMM! *bares ass*

Then its' easier and safer. Neither of which actually equates to freer.

Say hi to the luluboomers. You know they've banned the mushrooms, right? Just a couple of days ago.

If buying from someone gives one less jail time than growing, I would say that, while not free, it's free'er and more gooder too.

I know not of these luluboomers but you may already be aware that I have no quarrels with buying something illegally if I want it. I only shroom like once every few years anyway.

Hard work is for fake slackers. Pot is the easy way into slacking and just what a true slacker needs

:eek:
Good Lord, you're right! I've been doing it wrong all this time!

:eek:
Good Lord, you're right! I've been doing it wrong all this time!

You were just thinking too hard. Try not thinking next time.

I call shenanigans - Every parent I've known who smoked pot were the coolest parents I knew and had really good healthy kids.

Lucky you. The ones I've known were more like

This (http://article.wn.com/view/2008/04/22/Hernando_Deputies_Mom_Left_Tot_Alone_To_Go_Smoke_Pot/)

And this. (http://article.wn.com/view/2008/04/17/Shock_video_of_couple_forcing_18monthold_baby_to_smoke_marij/)

Also, it is not true that neglect = death. Neglect can take many forms and lead to much less obvious but no less damaging effects, including social maladjustment and depression.

Incidentally, there are studies which indicate that mothers who continue to use pot after their children are born tend to be rejecting and neglectful.

Newcomb and Loeb. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VB8-45X09XV-1&_user=3554035&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000060848&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=3554035&md5=8a99cf99da182353da50433a83968db9#bib108)

Lucky you. The ones I've known were more like

This (http://article.wn.com/view/2008/04/22/Hernando_Deputies_Mom_Left_Tot_Alone_To_Go_Smoke_Pot/)

And this. (http://article.wn.com/view/2008/04/17/Shock_video_of_couple_forcing_18monthold_baby_to_smoke_marij/)

Also, it is not true that neglect = death. Neglect can take many forms and lead to much less obvious but no less damaging effects, including social maladjustment and depression.

Incidentally, there are studies which indicate that mothers who continue to use pot after their children are born tend to be rejecting and neglectful.

Newcomb and Loeb. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VB8-45X09XV-1&_user=3554035&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000060848&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=3554035&md5=8a99cf99da182353da50433a83968db9#bib108)

So do you propose that we continue to punish parents that hurt their kids and at what point do we draw the line on what constitutes a kid being hurt by a parent. Also how many cameras should we place in each room of a parents home?

I'm not questioning the rest of your criticisms, but there are still studies that suggest a correlation between the use of cannabis and the occurrence of schizophrenic symptoms in people genetically predisposed towards it. Although this doesn't mean that you'll "Get it" by smoking pot, it certainly suggests that if you already have a mild and otherwise harmless version of it, you'll probably be making it worse.

My understanding of schizophrenia, is thats a degenerative neurological disease.
Meaning it continues to progress. Meaning that if you do indeed have a mild and harmless form of it, it doesnt usually stay mild or harmless for long.

I would tend to think, assuming Im correct, that any sort of psychotropic drug of any kind would have a negative impact on such a condition. If that is so, then I dont believe marijuana should be negatively viewed becuase of it.

No one with a serious mental disorder should probably do any substance recreationally.

While I do advocate marijuana as a recreational drug, I dont advocate irresponsibility.
Theres a time and a place for everything.

Having suffered for 3 years from a Psychosis triggerd by way to much of the 'good stuff' I can tell you now that all that THC etc you are getting into your system can and will after an undetermined amount of time trigger a mental illness.

You sir Fail epically. You don't get a mental illness in the normal sense of catching a cold or a flu bug.. you trigger it with life situations, chemichals and other medical factors!

Wrong. You just said it yourself.

Your situation was triggered by more than one factor.
Many things contributed to your alleged situation. To blame the weed, wich you yourself said you were smoking "way too much" of, would be innacurate, and you are fully aware of that.

It was your genetics, your environment, your everyday life and stresses, and your overuse of a substance.
You cannot point to any ONE factor and say it contributed more than any other.

Fail yourself.