9
   

SHOULD CANNABIS BE LEGAL...?

 
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jun, 2010 02:52 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
You can of course believe what you want. For example, you can believe that Cyanide is not a poison if you so choose to.

By the way, in relation to my previous post
Quote:
This is one of the more farcial claims I've ever seen. Heroin is also produced naturally in the body - I'm sure you know what taking too much of that does to you. Same with adrenalin. Vitamins are necessary to health, yet too much of any one of them also produces illness.
I realise this isn't very clear. There's a few things : just because the body produces something naturally, does not make that substance good in large amounts. Shizophrenia is a health/medical issue. And lastly, from what I've read, and personally seen, there appears to be a genetic lottery as to certain side effects of cannabis - schizophrenia, reduced brain function etc. The majority appear rather unaffected by the more negative side effects.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jun, 2010 02:53 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

You can of course believe what you want. For example, you can believe that Cyanide is not a poison if you so choose to.


With the difference being, there is a wealth of evidence showing that Cyanide is in fact a poison; whereas there most certainly is not evidence showing that Marijuana is worse for your lungs than cigarettes.

Cycloptichorn
vikorr
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jun, 2010 03:07 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
there most certainly is not evidence showing that Marijuana is worse for your lungs than cigarettes.

Type 'cannabis lung damage' into google.

Below are articles from various sources, various countries, and various dates. Of course, there are also sites that claim that it's all a load of claptrap.

http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2003/study-marijuana-causes-lung.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6551327.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1559014/A-joint-equals-five-cigarettes-for-lung-damage.html
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=234
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news/one_marijuana_joint_equal_to_five_cigarettes_in_lung_damage
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080123104017.htm
http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Smoking+causes+much+damage+tobacco+Study/1865568/story.html
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jun, 2010 03:18 pm
@vikorr,
Most of the studies you link to are either a very small sample size group or are inconclusive. There are also a wide variety of other studies, which show that Marijuana does not lead to lung cancer or emphysema in the way that cigs do:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html

Not only that, but Marijuana acts as a vasodilator and Tobacco acts as a vasoconstrictor - the way the lungs react to the two substances is completely different.

While the science behind whether or not Marijuana is harmful to your lungs is inconclusive at best, I doubt you can find a single study showing that Cyanide isn't bad for you; that's why your example was a poor one.

Cycloptichorn

OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jun, 2010 04:36 pm
@mark noble,
Yes; government has no jurisdiction to outlaw anything for human ingestion.

It does so only by USURPATION, with as much authority as a schoolyard bully.





David
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  2  
Fri 18 Jun, 2010 04:41 pm
@Transcend,
Welcome, Trancend. I agree with you, at the same time I'll listen that there are negs re marijuana. Still, I'll opt for informed consent over proscription and criminalizing over decades.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jun, 2010 05:08 pm
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

personally I prefer opium.


See dys we can agree on some things.

Pretty hard to get though.
djjd62
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jun, 2010 05:09 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

personally I prefer opium.


See dys we can agree on some things.

Pretty hard to get though.


i'd settle for some decent hash
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jun, 2010 05:16 pm
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:

Always wanted to try that.


Colonial Europe couldn't have humbled The Middle Kingdom if it wasn't most excellent.

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Fri 18 Jun, 2010 05:28 pm
We know that prohibition of so-called vices always leads to crime and violence.
We know that from a financial standpoint the US would come out way ahead of the game legalizing drugs, even if the government paid for all addict treatment.

As for the downside of drug usage, the government's role should be limited to education (very cheap) and minimal regulation - assuring the drugs are pure and that they aren't sold to kids.

There are a million things that are "bad" for me and I neither need nor want the government to protect me from them through prohibition.

Don't just legalize pot, legalize all drugs.

vikorr
 
  1  
Fri 18 Jun, 2010 08:25 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Most of the studies you link to are either a very small sample size group or are inconclusive. There are also a wide variety of other studies, which show that Marijuana does not lead to lung cancer or emphysema in the way that cigs do:

Glad to read the article - though I didn't see the mention about emphysema in there.

At present, about 10% of young adults and 1% of the adult population smoke marijuana regularly. Researchers find that the mean age of marijuana-smoking patients with lung problems was 41, as opposed to the average age of 65 years for tobacco-smoking patients.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080123104017.htm


Quote:
While the science behind whether or not Marijuana is harmful to your lungs is inconclusive at best, I doubt you can find a single study showing that Cyanide isn't bad for you; that's why your example was a poor one.
You missed the point of that example : you made a statement of belief, without supporting it - and just because you state you don’t believe something is a certain way, does not make it not that way.
mark noble
 
  1  
Sat 19 Jun, 2010 06:23 am
@vikorr,
Hi Vikorr,
There is no evidence that CAN prove for or against the implications of use. Drinking water may or may not lead to schizophrenia or psychosis - so how does one distinguish whether a person with these conditions didn't acquire them by drinking water, You can't! Neither can a laboratory test. Scientists cannot go around inducing mental disorders on people.
In the early stages of use, as I stated, the senses are enhanced and the mind becomes suddenly aware of sights, sounds, smells, tastes and feelings normally blotted out by the social backdrop. This is a shock to the system (Kind of like when Pete Parker got bitten by the spider in Spiderman). The shock induces, in those with guilt complexes (Awareness of the illegalities) a level of paranoia - that has the potential to fly off the handle in some cases and reveal anxiety-related problems and disorders. The paranoia is an extension of underlying guilt (of whatever origin). The THC content is also variable and can induce alternate states of positive or negative experience.
Cannabis only enhances the problems that already exists.

Anyway, have a great day, and thank you, Vikorr.
Mark...
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sat 19 Jun, 2010 09:09 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
We know that prohibition of so-called vices always leads to crime and violence.
We know that from a financial standpoint the US would come out way ahead of the game legalizing drugs, even if the government paid for all addict treatment.

As for the downside of drug usage, the government's role should be limited to education (very cheap) and minimal regulation - assuring the drugs are pure and that they aren't sold to kids.

There are a million things that are "bad" for me and I neither need nor want the government to protect me from them through prohibition.




Don't just legalize pot, legalize all drugs.
WELL SAID! So stipulated.

I wish that holders of public office coud be
subject to SEVERE PUNISHMENT for USURPATION of power,
the same (or worse) than bank tellers who steal from the vault.

For the crime of USURPATION,
thay shoud not be tried in their own courts.





David
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Sat 19 Jun, 2010 06:16 pm
@mark noble,
Hi Mark,

I remember reading years ago, in NewScientist.com (they used to have a whole section dedicated to alcohol and marijuana studies) that there is a chemical in the brain (I'm sorry, I don't recall the name of the chemical, it wasn't common, and Newscientist.com is these days subscriber based) that was necessary for rational thought. Schizophrenics has a lower level of this chemical than normal. There are people out there who are not schizophrenic but don't quite have the normal level of this chemical, and Cannabis lowers the level of this chemical - sometimes to the schizophrenic level.

Now you can think as you like that nothing can positively prove a connection, but you can go back and see my example of the two brothers, and their story, and many others, pretty much match the above study.

There are also studies on genes and how they affect the likelihood of becoming addicted to any particular pleasurable substance, with the incidents of much higher in people with a certain gene, than those without (yeah, I know, don't have a reference for this one either)

Drugs also affect different people differently. For example, my younger brother who was involved in a very serious fall, is pretty much immune to one of the sedatives they gave him (they were giving him two, and in large dose) and he kept waking up while they wanted him to sleep.

The point is, there's appears to be a genetic lottery to the affects of many drugs on us...but whether or not a specific cause can be proved, there are obviously physiological reasons for this (I'm sorry, I don't buy your 'he was completely normal until he smoked marijuana, but he must always have had mentally psychotic problems because, even though shizophrenia is proven to involve chemical imbalances, hence they can usually treat them with other drugs, marijuana itself couldn't possibly trigger it through physiological means.)
0 Replies
 
Sentience
 
  1  
Sun 20 Jun, 2010 03:17 pm
Just a note on the lung cancer thing...

First of all, while it's been proven that cannabis leaves have, yes, about five times as much tar in it, the bud of the plant is usually smoked, not the leaf.

Second of all, cigarettes contain nicotine, which marijuana does not. According to the American Heart Association, nicotine can directly affect the lungs through the blood stream. When nicotine enters the bloodstream through the lungs, blood pressure is temporarily increased, and the arteries throughout the body become more narrow. This restricts the amount of blood that can be circulated throughout the body. Restriction of blood also restricts the amount of oxygen the lungs can circulate in the blood to keep the body healthy. To further complicate the situation, the carbon monoxide that usually accompanies nicotine restricts the amount of oxygen the blood can carry. This causes a shortage between the amount of oxygen the body needs and the amount of oxygen the lungs can place in the bloodstream.

Furthermore, marijuana's smoke can be coughed up in much healthier quantities then tobacco.

Pot is not 'addictive' in the sense that it is usually thought of. It's the equivalent of a sweet tooth, a mental addiction, rather then the much more potent physical addiction.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Sun 20 Jun, 2010 03:24 pm
@Sentience,
Sentience wrote:

Just a note on the lung cancer thing...

First of all, while it's been proven that cannabis leaves have, yes, about five times as much tar in it, the bud of the plant is usually smoked, not the leaf.

Second of all, cigarettes contain nicotine, which marijuana does not. According to the American Heart Association, nicotine can directly affect the lungs through the blood stream. When nicotine enters the bloodstream through the lungs, blood pressure is temporarily increased, and the arteries throughout the body become more narrow. This restricts the amount of blood that can be circulated throughout the body. Restriction of blood also restricts the amount of oxygen the lungs can circulate in the blood to keep the body healthy. To further complicate the situation, the carbon monoxide that usually accompanies nicotine restricts the amount of oxygen the blood can carry. This causes a shortage between the amount of oxygen the body needs and the amount of oxygen the lungs can place in the bloodstream.

Furthermore, marijuana's smoke can be coughed up in much healthier quantities then tobacco.

Pot is not 'addictive' in the sense that it is usually thought of. It's the equivalent of a sweet tooth, a mental addiction, rather then the much more potent physical addiction.


And so...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/27/2022 at 05:44:25