Should marijuana be legalized?

[saggyjones]

Should we legalize pot on a national level? I'd like to hear people's opinions.

I believe we should for the following reasons:

--Marijuana isn't linked to lung cancer, unlike cigarettes.
Cannabis Smoke and Cancer: Assessing the Risk - NORML (http://www.norml.org//index.cfm?Group_ID=6891)

--Police arrested an estimated 786,545 persons for marijuana violations in 2005, and 88% were arrested for possession alone.
Marijuana Arrests For Year 2005 -- 786,545 Tops Record High... Pot Smokers Arrested In America At A Rate Of One Every 40 Seconds - NORML (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7040)
Sending that many people to jail is a big waste of tax money for something so nonthreatening.

--2001 Total Deaths: 2,416,425 Cannabis Related Deaths: 138
truth: the Anti-drugwar Cannabis "Related" Deaths (2001) (http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/death/01pot-related.htm)

-Now let's take a look at the alcohol related deaths.


--Marijuana doesn't impair driving ability as much as alcohol, as shown by this introduction to a study:



Here's another quote (facts are on that page but I'm simply summarizing the one above):


As you can see alcohol is a far greater killer than marijuana.

--A common argument is that marijuana leads to harder drugs. That's not the case:


Also, and I believe this is very important, legalizing marijuana will drastically reduce the amount of people who move on to harder drugs. Imagine this situation: A person looking to buy some pot goes to his neighborhood drug dealer because he can't grow it or buy it legally in a bar or something. He goes back a month later to buy some more and the dealer asks him if he wants to try some harder stuff. The person says yes and marijuana becomes a gateway drug to cocaine, meth, heroin, etc. If marijuana is legalized this won't happen because people won't go to drug dealers to obtain it.

--Another common argument is that by legalizing marijuana more people will use it. This is a flawed argument for two reasons:
1. As shown by the number of deaths in 2004, more users won't really make a difference.
2. Pot being illegal doesn't really stop people from buying it (this is based on personal experience, not any facts).

So in conclusion, if you're going to keep marijuana illegal why not make alcohol illegal also? I'm fine with both being illegal since I don't use either very much, but alcohol is a much bigger killer than weed, and it's not harming anyone, so why criminalize it? And as the bold text above states it's actually doing harm making it illegal.

[Eternal]

marijuana is a gateway drug.

usage of marijuana will lead to usage of harder drugs.

however, i have to agree with you on the alcohol part. i think there should be more restrictions on alcohol

[InterestedParty]

Now... the truth....

A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers. Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

Marijuana abuse also has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke. It also induces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form—levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs' exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may be more harmful to the lungs than smoking tobacco.


One study has indicated that an abuser's risk of heart attack more than quadruples in the first hour after smoking marijuana. The researchers suggest that such an effect might occur from marijuana's effects on blood pressure and heart rate and reduced oxygen-carrying capacity of blood.

The short-term effects of marijuana can include problems with memory and learning; distorted perception; difficulty in thinking and problem solving; loss of coordination; and increased heart rate.

Some of marijuana's adverse health effects may occur because THC impairs the immune system's ability to fight disease. In laboratory experiments that exposed animal and human cells to THC or other marijuana ingredients, the normal disease-preventing reactions of many of the key types of immune cells were inhibited.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html

[saggyjones]

marijuana is a gateway drug.

usage of marijuana will lead to usage of harder drugs.

however, i have to agree with you on the alcohol part. i think there should be more restrictions on alcohol

Apparently you didn't read my entire post. As I stated, the legalization of marijuana would lessen it being a gateway drug, because when it's illegal people have to go to a dealer to get it. If it's sold like any other product, you could just buy it at the store, and not be exposed to harder drugs from your dealer. If that's confusing read this:

Also, and I believe this is very important, legalizing marijuana will drastically reduce the amount of people who move on to harder drugs. Imagine this situation: A person looking to buy some pot goes to his neighborhood drug dealer because he can't grow it or buy it legally in a bar or something. He goes back a month later to buy some more and the dealer asks him if he wants to try some harder stuff. The person says yes and marijuana becomes a gateway drug to cocaine, meth, heroin, etc. If marijuana is legalized this won't happen because people won't go to drug dealers to obtain it.

[saggyjones]

Now... the truth....

A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers. Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

Marijuana abuse also has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke. It also induces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form—levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs' exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may be more harmful to the lungs than smoking tobacco.


One study has indicated that an abuser's risk of heart attack more than quadruples in the first hour after smoking marijuana. The researchers suggest that such an effect might occur from marijuana's effects on blood pressure and heart rate and reduced oxygen-carrying capacity of blood.

OK you proved me wrong about the lung cancer part. I'll address why it doesn't matter at the end of the post.

The short-term effects of marijuana can include problems with memory and learning; distorted perception; difficulty in thinking and problem solving; loss of coordination; and increased heart rate.

Along with feeling like a million bucks! lol

Some of marijuana's adverse health effects may occur because THC impairs the immune system's ability to fight disease. In laboratory experiments that exposed animal and human cells to THC or other marijuana ingredients, the normal disease-preventing reactions of many of the key types of immune cells were inhibited.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html

Alcohol and cigarettes are also bad for your body, yet they are legal. I'm sure you know how bad alcohol is, and I don't think I need to post a link; same with cigarettes. What you're arguing for is the government controlling what people do to their own bodies, which isn't fair and pretty much goes against our constitution. Something the government should regulate or ban is stuff that puts other people in danger, like alcohol, secondhand smoke, etc. If you look at my first post you will see that marijuana is not a threat to other people and should not be prohibited. I would support making alcohol illegal but it's not fair to have it legal and keep marijuana illegal.

[USMC the Almighty]

Alcohol and cigarettes are also bad for your body, yet they are legal. I'm sure you know how bad alcohol is, and I don't think I need to post a link; same with cigarettes. What you're arguing for is the government controlling what people do to their own bodies, which isn't fair and pretty much goes against our constitution. Something the government should regulate or ban is stuff that puts other people in danger, like alcohol, secondhand smoke, etc. If you look at my first post you will see that marijuana is not a threat to other people and should not be prohibited. I would support making alcohol illegal but it's not fair to have it legal and keep marijuana illegal.

I could honestly care less about the entire issue, but this is one argument that I never understood "Oh well alcohol is legal, so pot should be be legal."

[saggyjones]

I could honestly care less about the entire issue, but this is one argument that I never understood "Oh well alcohol is legal, so pot should be be legal."

Alcohol causes many more deaths than weed, even in comparison with the number of users.

These are just some random stats:

--2001 Total Deaths: 2,416,425 Cannabis Related Deaths: 138

http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/death/01pot-related.htm

In 2004, there were over 16000 deaths directly related to drunk driving in the United States.

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-deaths.html

[USMC the Almighty]

What do these stats prove in regards to marijuana? If anything, these numbers provide you with an argument for banning alcohol.

[saggyjones]

What do these stats prove in regards to marijuana? If anything, these numbers provide you with an argument for banning alcohol.

I would wholeheartedly support banning alcohol. I just don't think it's fair to people who want to smoke pot that such a harmless drug is illegal and a harmful drug (alcohol) is legal. By harmless and harmful I mean to other people, not to oneself.

[InterestedParty]

"If you look at my first post you will see that marijuana is not a threat to other people and should not be prohibited."

Anything that distorts perception and loss of coordination is a threat to other people. Marijuana included.

You are using a very weak argument. You feel it should be legalized so you can use it without consequences.

Please explain to me exactly how not legalizing marijuana is a violation of the Constitution. (This should be good). :rolleyes:

[saggyjones]

"If you look at my first post you will see that marijuana is not a threat to other people and should not be prohibited."

Anything that distorts perception and loss of coordination is a threat to other people. Marijuana included.

You are using a very weak argument. You feel it should be legalized so you can use it without consequences.

It is much less dangerous than alcohol as shown by the number of deaths in a year related to it, only 138. NyQuil, cough syrup, and other over the counter drugs have effects like drowsiness and loss of coordination and are dangerous while driving, and they are legal. But I'm fine with you not wanting to legalize marijuana as long as you explain why alcohol should stay legal when it's much more dangerous.

Please explain to me exactly how not legalizing marijuana is a violation of the Constitution. (This should be good). :rolleyes:

Did I ever say it is a violation of the Constitution? That's not even part of my argument.

[InterestedParty]

Did I ever say it is a violation of the Constitution? That's not even part of my argument.

You implied that your not being able to smoke marijuanna legally was a violation of your Constitutional rights.



What you're arguing for is the government controlling what people do to their own bodies, which isn't fair and pretty much goes against our constitution.


It is not my responsibility to debate whether or not alcohol use should be legal or illegal. I've seen you use this tactic a number of times now. You attempt to justify one thing by condemning something else instead of debating the issue on the facts. Just state the obvious... you want to be able to get high without the fear of criminal prosecution. You are willing to overlook the potential negative side effects to be able to do this. Just say it. If you truly cared about the effects of alcohol or smoking regular tobacco then you wouldn't support smoking pot either.

[saggyjones]

You implied that your not being able to smoke marijuanna legally was a violation of your Constitutional rights.

Can you quote this part?

It is not my responsibility to debate whether or not alcohol use should be legal or illegal. I've seen you use this tactic a number of times now. You attempt to justify one thing by condemning something else instead of debating the issue on the facts. Just state the obvious... you want to be able to get high without the fear of criminal prosecution.

That's exactly it, except I'm not that selfish. I want other people to be able to get high also. But I also don't think it's fair to pot users that drinkers get to drink without prosecution when it's much more dangerous than marijuana. I don't see how that argument is irrelevant.

You are willing to overlook the potential negative side effects to be able to do this. Just say it. If you truly cared about the effects of alcohol or smoking regular tobacco then you wouldn't support smoking pot either.

Why should the government control what people do to their own bodies? The problem I have with alcohol is that it kills so many people besides the one drinking. Marijuana doesn't do that.

[Kiyomori]

Legalise it and put tax on it. People are less danger to themselves and other people sat stoned at home than out on the streets pissed up.

It's a gateway drug because it introduces people to a world of illegal drug deals. If they were buying it over the counter in their local store they wouldn't be going anywhere near anyone who has an interest in 'E', coke, crack, meth or any of that rubbish. They'd also be taking a lot of drug revenue away from the illegal dealers and creating a new industry.

It works fine in Amsterdam. My friend Loz moved to Amsterdam after finishing Uni a couple of years back and about 6 months ago he quit smoking dope, after having done so illegally for many years in this country. Why did he quit when it was legally available to him? Because he realised he wasn't achieving any of his big entrepeneurial ideas because he was too staoned to act on them. You can easily break your own addictive cycels if you're treated like an adult by the society you live in. smoking dope and drinking booze are both things that can be done responsibly and in moderation but are terrible when done in excess.

I think if it's legalised it can be more sensibly managed... and the Government should be seeing $$$ signs when thinking about the prospect. That's a hell of a lot of tax revenue potential.


Oh and another thing on the drugs subject, did you know that studies show America would save billions of dollars in the war against drugs if it spent more on rehabilitating users rather than costly military campaigns in Cuba destroying arable land. The growers simply move on and start up again while the user on the street barely notices. Stop people using and the drugs problem disappears. Supply and demand. Cut off the demand and nobody will bnother to supply any longer.

[saggyjones]

Legalise it and put tax on it. People are less danger to themselves and other people sat stoned at home than out on the streets pissed up.

It's a gateway drug because it introduces people to a world of illegal drug deals. If they were buying it over the counter in their local store they wouldn't be going anywhere near anyone who has an interest in 'E', coke, crack, meth or any of that rubbish. They'd also be taking a lot of drug revenue away from the illegal dealers and creating a new industry.

It works fine in Amsterdam. My friend Loz moved to Amsterdam after finishing Uni a couple of years back and about 6 months ago he quit smoking dope, after having done so illegally for many years in this country. Why did he quit when it was legally available to him? Because he realised he wasn't achieving any of his big entrepeneurial ideas because he was too staoned to act on them. You can easily break your own addictive cycels if you're treated like an adult by the society you live in. smoking dope and drinking booze are both things that can be done responsibly and in moderation but are terrible when done in excess.

I think if it's legalised it can be more sensibly managed... and the Government should be seeing $$$ signs when thinking about the prospect. That's a hell of a lot of tax revenue potential.


Oh and another thing on the drugs subject, did you know that studies show America would save billions of dollars in the war against drugs if it spent more on rehabilitating users rather than costly military campaigns in Cuba destroying arable land. The growers simply move on and start up again while the user on the street barely notices. Stop people using and the drugs problem disappears. Supply and demand. Cut off the demand and nobody will bnother to supply any longer.

I agree 100%.

[Friendindeed]

I would wholeheartedly support banning alcohol. I just don't think it's fair to people who want to smoke pot that such a harmless drug is illegal and a harmful drug (alcohol) is legal. By harmless and harmful I mean to other people, not to oneself.


First off I support legalizing marijuana.

But here is where I think you go wrong. When you say harmless to other people not to oneself, there is no such thing.
Because if you harm yourself the hospital has to take you and if you can't pay then other people's taxes pay for that or else the hospital raises prices to compensate.

[OldSchool Politician]

Hell No...why waste time legalizing something and its everywhere. It stinks
to people who can't stand the smell, and the majority of the weedheads
don't give a damn where they smoke it.
By me being for the old school days we used to (they still do) grow the
weed in the backyard or in a flower pot in the front yard. I had a buddy
who had a 8 foot marijuana tree growing in his front yard, until one day
it caught on fire, and got the entire neighborhood high.

Each to his own however I do not think that weed should be legalized.

[saggyjones]

First off I support legalizing marijuana.

But here is where I think you go wrong. When you say harmless to other people not to oneself, there is no such thing.
Because if you harm yourself the hospital has to take you and if you can't pay then other people's taxes pay for that or else the hospital raises prices to compensate.

I meant physically harmful, but that's a good point. I still think the benefits outweigh the risks however.

[saggyjones]

Hell No...why waste time legalizing something and its everywhere. It stinks
to people who can't stand the smell,

So do cigarettes. Do you support banning those?

and the majority of the weedheads
don't give a damn where they smoke it.

That's not true. Marijuana etiquette requires that one asks for permission before smoking. Anyone who doesn't is, and you may quote me on this, a douche bag and would never get weed from me. I can't take away your apparent bad experiences with this, so I'm sorry on behalf of the entire marijuana smoking community.

By me being for the old school days we used to (they still do) grow the
weed in the backyard or in a flower pot in the front yard. I had a buddy
who had a 8 foot marijuana tree growing in his front yard, until one day
it caught on fire, and got the entire neighborhood high.

LOL hilarious

Each to his own however I do not think that weed should be legalized.

What about alcohol? Before I argue with you I want to know where you stand about those. Making it illegal is fine with me, but keeping it legal and marijuana not is very unfair.

[Lilly Marlene]

Just to weigh in on this one for a moment,

Yes I support legalization.
The absurd "War on Drugs" has been a complete folly - particularly as regards pot.

[Friendindeed]

What about alcohol? Before I argue with you I want to know where you stand about those. Making it illegal is fine with me, but keeping it legal and marijuana not is very unfair.

I know you weren't talking to me, but you're fine with making alcohol illegal ?
Does history not but teach us somtihng about that ?

[OldSchool Politician]

So do cigarettes. Do you support banning those?

That's not true. Marijuana etiquette requires that one asks for permission before smoking. Anyone who doesn't is, and you may quote me on this, a douche bag and would never get weed from me. I can't take away your apparent bad experiences with this, so I'm sorry on behalf of the entire marijuana smoking community.

LOL hilarious

What about alcohol? Before I argue with you I want to know where you stand about those. Making it illegal is fine with me, but keeping it legal and marijuana not is very unfair.

To answer your first question? I don't care if they are banned or not.
Like the Cigarette ad said...The breath you save is your own.
Ask permission to smoke a joint? hahaha. Bad Expereinces? The only
bad experiences I had was raiding the refrig, or eatting a box of corn
flakes, and a Milky Ways candy bar. (You know what I mean)?

To me Alcohol is just as bad, due to the fact that alcohol is a downer,
and it makes your breath smell like S**t. Frankly I stop during drugs
(including weed),alcohol, and I don't smoke. So I will tell anyone...if
you love your life like I love mine....stop f***ing with it all.

[Koios]

One of the most respectable economist of all time seemed to think we shouldn't just legalize marijuana but that we in fact needed to legalize pretty much every drug. Here is a video of Milton Friedman discussing the matter:

Se_TJzB9-z0

(Direct link to video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se_TJzB9-z0))

[saggyjones]

I know you weren't talking to me, but you're fine with making alcohol illegal ?
Does history not but teach us somtihng about that ?

I don't really care if it's made illegal. But if you're talking about prohibition, marijuana is creating the same situation, and legalizing it would be for the best. I just don't think it's fair that alcohol, which is a very dangerous drug compared to marijuana, is legal and weed is not.

[saggyjones]

To answer your first question? I don't care if they are banned or not.
Like the Cigarette ad said...The breath you save is your own.

You said that marijuana stinks to everyone else, but so do cigarettes. So that reason for keeping pot illegal is eliminated, right?

Ask permission to smoke a joint? hahaha. Bad Expereinces? The only
bad experiences I had was raiding the refrig, or eatting a box of corn
flakes, and a Milky Ways candy bar. (You know what I mean)?

Why should the government step in with personal preference issues though?

And yes, I know what you mean lol

To me Alcohol is just as bad, due to the fact that alcohol is a downer,
and it makes your breath smell like S**t. Frankly I stop during drugs
(including weed),alcohol, and I don't smoke. So I will tell anyone...if
you love your life like I love mine....stop f***ing with it all.

Alcohol is much worse because it impairs you way more. It still amazes me how many deaths result from alcohol every year. Pot doesn't result in many deaths, and in he ones it does cause it's usually coupled with alcohol. As for your suggestion to stop smoking weed, I find that it's a great way to relax and have fun without messing me up. I don't drink because of how bad it is for your body, but weed isn't that bad if you use the right smoking device.

So why do you think it should be illegal?

[saggyjones]

One of the most respectable economist of all time seemed to think we shouldn't just legalize marijuana but that we in fact needed to legalize pretty much every drug. Here is a video of Milton Friedman discussing the matter:

Se_TJzB9-z0

(Direct link to video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se_TJzB9-z0))

I really don't have time to watch that but if you want to basically sum it up I would reply to it. I'll bookmark it for some other time though.

[USMC the Almighty]

I have great respect for Friedman. I'll be sure to check it out...

[Koios]

Well its been a while since I watched it myself but he does bring up the prohibition and how it had a negative effect. He discusses how many prisoners today might have been reputable citizens if it wasn't because they are considered criminals under the current system. Addicts could seek help without fearing imprisonment. He also talks about how regulation of drugs would make drugs a lot safer since part of the problem today is that many drugs are not "pure". He then goes on to argue how stronger and more dangerous drugs are being developed BECAUSE of illegality (i.e crack cocaine).

While his argument is quite economically sound, I wonder what else would emerge after all drugs are legalized. I mean, there are many people who are always looking to be "on the edge" of things and those people would probably want something else that is not legal.

[USMC the Almighty]

I think Mr. Friedman has me convinced from an economic standpoint...

[saggyjones]

Well its been a while since I watched it myself but he does bring up the prohibition and how it had a negative effect. He discusses how many prisoners today might have been reputable citizens if it wasn't because they are considered criminals under the current system. Addicts could seek help without fearing imprisonment. He also talks about how regulation of drugs would make drugs a lot safer since part of the problem today is that many drugs are not "pure". He then goes on to argue how stronger and more dangerous drugs are being developed BECAUSE of illegality (i.e crack cocaine).

While his argument is quite economically sound, I wonder what else would emerge after all drugs are legalized. I mean, there are many people who are always looking to be "on the edge" of things and those people would probably want something else that is not legal.

Hearing this I think I would agree with him, especially the bolded sentence.

To your last paragraph, I agree, but it doesn't really matter then if we legalize drugs or not, because they will always look for illegal things. Maybe then they will move away from drugs and toward crime or something, so there would be drawbacks.

[9sublime]

If alcohol had never been invented, and someone created it today there is no way it would be made legal. The government would say no because it:

Induces violence
It can kill through overdose
It is addictive
It causes liver damage
It severley impares all judgement and senses

and pubs and bars not exist, instead they would be a form of crackhouse for alcoholics. So why isn't marijuana legal too?

Because now its illegal, people believe everything they hear about it, and don't want to change it because stories will come in about kids killing themselves on the stuff (which happens on alcohol every day). The government would have a hard time taxing it as well.

The other day I also read in the paper that strains of skunk are just as powerful as heroin. Thats almost as misinformed as those Reefer Madness videos from the 50's.

[vyo476]

If alcohol had never been invented, and someone created it today there is no way it would be made legal. The government would say no because it:

Induces violence
It can kill through overdose
It is addictive
It causes liver damage
It severley impares all judgement and senses

and pubs and bars not exist, instead they would be a form of crackhouse for alcoholics. So why isn't marijuana legal too?

Because now its illegal, people believe everything they hear about it, and don't want to change it because stories will come in about kids killing themselves on the stuff (which happens on alcohol every day). The government would have a hard time taxing it as well.

The other day I also read in the paper that strains of skunk are just as powerful as heroin. Thats almost as misinformed as those Reefer Madness videos from the 50's.

That is the heart of the issue, all right. Alcohol is a cultural thing here in America - our ancestors here drank beer and everyone else (except the Mormons and the Quakers, of course) have drank beer throughout the years between 1776 and now. The people of America want their beer just like their forefathers wanted their beer (or whiskey, which I'm given to understand was even more popular back then).

That being said, I don't think that making marijuana legal would be shat all over quite so quickly as you seem to be predicting. Sure, there would be people opposed to it, and yes, certain media outlets would be flooded with tales of youngsters exposed to the "newly legalized evils of marijuana" or some such nonsense. But I still think it'd be good for America and enough of the media either wouldn't have an opinion on the subject (which gives a much better chance of them being objective in reporting the results) or would be for it.

And as for the taxation thing, why would it be so hard? I think that a good chunk of the people who currently grow, sell, or use marijuana in America today would gladly pay a little extra to the government in exchange for the ability to do so without the threat of fines and imprisonment hanging over their heads. Sure, you'd still get the people who try to sneak by the tax laws, and that could potentially become a problem, but I don't think it will, for the reasons enumerated above.

[Rokerijdude11]

marijuana is a gateway drug.

usage of marijuana will lead to usage of harder drugs.

however, i have to agree with you on the alcohol part. i think there should be more restrictions on alcohol
care to back this Nonsensical claim with some facts?

[Rokerijdude11]

Now... the truth....

A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers. Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

Marijuana abuse also has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke. It also induces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form—levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs' exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may be more harmful to the lungs than smoking tobacco.


One study has indicated that an abuser's risk of heart attack more than quadruples in the first hour after smoking marijuana. The researchers suggest that such an effect might occur from marijuana's effects on blood pressure and heart rate and reduced oxygen-carrying capacity of blood.

The short-term effects of marijuana can include problems with memory and learning; distorted perception; difficulty in thinking and problem solving; loss of coordination; and increased heart rate.

Some of marijuana's adverse health effects may occur because THC impairs the immune system's ability to fight disease. In laboratory experiments that exposed animal and human cells to THC or other marijuana ingredients, the normal disease-preventing reactions of many of the key types of immune cells were inhibited.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html



what a CROCK of CRAP fed to you by those who Villanized Mj in order to once again lie to the people and profit what you postsed isnt true at all that is Government rhetorics plain and simple

Now for some real truth we will start here

If you think you can PROVE ANY of what i post on this as WRONG.... feel free to go to the author that i am getting my research from, and collect 100,000,.00 cash IF you can PROVE ANY of it wrong that is........

good luck

http://jackherer.com/comparison.html



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
In The Matter Of MARIJUANA RESCHEDULING PETITION
Docket No. 86-22
OPINION AND RECOMMENDED RULING, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FRANCIS L. YOUNG, Administrative Law Judge
DATED: SEPTEMBER 6, 1988

Section 8 of Judge Young's "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision."

Page 56 & 57 http://mojo.calyx.net/~olsen/MEDICAL/YOUNG/young

3. The most obvious concern when dealing with drug safety is the possibility of lethal effects. Can the drug cause death?

4. Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality.

This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world. Estimates suggest that from twenty million to fifty million Americans routinely, albeit illegally, smoke marijuana without the benefit of direct medical supervision. Yet, despite this long history of use and the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death.

6. By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year.

7. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death.

8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.

9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity.

[Rokerijdude11]

http://jackherer.com/chapter04.html


A Conspiracy to Wipe Out the Natural Competition

In the mid-1930s, when the new mechanical hemp fiber stripping machines and machines to conserve hemp's high-cellulose pulp finally became state-of-the-art, available and affordable, the enormous timber acreage and businesses of the Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division, Kimberly Clark (USA), St. Regis - and virtually all other timber, paper and large newspaper holding companies - stood to lose billions of dollars and perhaps go bankrupt.

Coincidentally, in 1937, DuPont had just patented processes for making plastics from oil and coal, as well as a new sulfate/sulfite process for making paper from wood pulp. According to DuPont's own corporate records and historians,* these processes accounted for over 80% of all the company's railroad carloadings over the next 60 years into the 1990s.

*Author's research and communications with DuPont, 1985-1996.

If hemp had not been made illegal, 80% of DuPont's business would never have materialized and the great majority of the pollution which has poisoned our Northwestern and Southeastern rivers would not have occurred.

In an open marketplace, hemp would have saved the majority of America's vital family farms and would probably have boosted their numbers, despite the Great Depression of the 1930s.

But competing against environmentally-sane hemp paper and natural plastic technology would have jeopardized the lucrative financial schemes of Hearst, DuPont and DuPont's chief financial backer, Andrew Mellon of the Mellon Bank of Pittsburgh.

"Social Reorganization"

A series of secret meetings were held.

In 1931, Mellon, in his role as Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury, appointed his future nephew-in-law, Harry J. Anslinger, to be head of the newly reorganized Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (FBNDD), a post he held for the next 31 years.

These industrial barons and financiers knew that machinery to cut, bale, decorticate (separate the fiber from the high-cellulose hurd), and process hemp into paper or plastics was becoming available in the mid-1930s. Cannabis hemp would have to go.

In DuPont's 1937 Annual Report to its stockholders, the company strongly urged continued investment in its new, but not readily accepted, petrochemical synthetic products. DuPont was anticipating "radical changes" from "the revenue raising power of government. . . converted into an instrument for forcing acceptance of sudden new ideas of industrial and social reorganization."*

*(DuPont Company, annual report, 1937, our emphasis added.)

In the Marijuana Conviction (University of Virginia Press, 1974), Richard Bonnie and Charles Whitebread II detailed this process:

"By the fall of 1936, Herman Oliphant (general counsel to the Treasury Department) had decided to employ the taxing power [of the federal government], but in a statute modeled after the National Firearms Act and wholly unrelated to the 1914 Harrison [narcotics] Act. Oliphant himself was in charge of preparing the bill. Anslinger directed his army to turn its campaign toward Washington.

"The key departure of the marijuana tax scheme from that of the Harrison Act is the notion of the prohibitive tax. Under the Harrison Act, a non-medical user could not legitimately buy or possess narcotics. To the dissenters in the Supreme Court decisions upholding the act, this clearly demonstrated that Congress' motive was to prohibit conduct rather than raise revenue. So in the National Firearms Act, designed to prohibit traffic in machine guns, Congress 'permitted' anyone to buy a machine gun, but required him to pay a $200 transfer tax* and carry out the purchase on an order form.

"The Firearms Act, passed in June 1934, was the first act to hide Congress' motives behind a prohibitive tax. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the anti-machine gun law on March 29, 1937. Oliphant had undoubtedly been awaiting the Court's decision, and the Treasury Department introduced its marihuana tax bill two weeks later, April 14, 1937."

Thus, DuPont's** decision to invest in new technologies based on "forcing acceptance of sudden new ideas of industrial and social reorganization" makes sense.

* About $5,000 in 1998 dollars.

** It is interesting to note that on April 29, 1937, two weeks after the Marihuana Tax Act was introduced, DuPont's foremost scientist, Wallace Hume Carothers, the inventor of nylon for DuPont, the world's number one organic chemist, committed suicide by drinking cyanide. Carothers was dead at age 41. . .

A Question of Motive

DuPont's plans were alluded to during the 1937 Senate hearings by Matt Rens, of Rens Hemp Company:

Mr. Rens: Such a tax would put all small producers out of the business of growing hemp, and the proportion of small producers is considerable. . . The real purpose of this bill is not to raise money, is it?

Senator Brown: Well, we're sticking to the proposition that it is.

Mr. Rens: It will cost a million.

Senator Brown: Thank you. (Witness dismissed.)

Hearst, His Hatred and Hysterical Lies

Concern about the effects of hemp smoke had already led to two major governmental studies. The British governor of India released the Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission 1893-1894 on heavy bhang smokers in the subcontinent.

And in 1930, the U.S. government sponsored the Siler Commission study on the effects of off-duty smoking of marijuana by American servicemen in Panama. Both reports concluded that marijuana was not a problem and recommended that no criminal penalties apply to its use.

In early 1937, Assistant U.S. Surgeon General Walter Treadway told the Cannabis Advisory Subcommittee of the League of Nations that, "It may be taken for a relatively long time without social or emotional breakdown. Marihuana is habit-forming. . . in the same sense as. . . sugar or coffee."

But other forces were at work. The war fury that led to the Spanish American War in 1898 was ignited by William Randolph Hearst, through his nationwide chain of newspapers, and marked the beginning of "yellow journalism"* as a force in American politics.

* Webster's Dictionary defines "yellow journalism" as the use of cheaply sensational or unscrupulous methods in newspapers and other media to attract or influence the readers.

In the 1920s and '30s, Hearst's newspapers deliberately manufactured a new threat to America and a new yellow journalism campaign to have hemp outlawed. For example, a story of a car accident in which a "marijuana cigarette" was found would dominate the headlines for weeks, while alcohol related car accidents (which outnumbered marijuana connected accidents by more than 10,000 to 1) made only the back pages.

This same theme of marijuana leading to car accidents was burned into the minds of Americans over and over again the in late 1930s by showing marijuana related car accident headlines in movies such as "Reefer Madness" and "Marijuana - Assassin of Youth."

[Rokerijdude11]

learn the REAL truth HERE

http://jackherer.com/chapters.html


Prove ANY of it Wrong and collect the cash!!! But you wont.....cuz you cant

http://jackherer.com/chapter15.html

After 15 days of taking testimony and more than a year's legal deliberation, DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young formally urged the DEA to allow doctors to prescribe marijuana. In a September 1988 judgement, he ruled: "The evidence in this record clearly shows that marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision . . . It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record. In strict medical terms, marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."

Yet former DEA Administrator John Lawn, his successor, Robert Bonner, and current DEA Administrator John Constantine - non-doctors all! - have refused to comply and have continued to deprive persons of medical cannabis, according to their own personal discretion.

Wasting Time, Wasting Lives

More than 100 years have passed since the 1894 British Raj commission study of hashish smokers in India reported cannabis use was harmless and even helpful. Numerous studies since have all agreed: The most prominent being Siler, LaGuardia, Nixon's Shafer Commission, Canada's LeDain Commission, and the California Research Advisory Commission.

Concurrently, American presidents have praised hemp, the USDA amassed volumes of data showing its value as a natural resource, and in 1942 the Roosevelt administration even made Hemp for Victory, a film glorifying our patriotic hemp farmers. That same year, Germany produced The Humorous Hemp Primer, a comic book, written in rhyme, extolling hemp's virtues. (See appendix I of the paper version of this book.)

Yet even the humane use of hemp for medicine is now denied. Asked in late 1989 about the DEA's failure to implement his decision quoted above, Judge Young responded that administrator John Lawn was being given time to comply.

More than a year after that ruling, Lawn officially refused to reschedule cannabis, again classing it as a Schedule I "dangerous" drug that is not even allowed to be used as medicine.

Decrying this needless suffering of helpless Americans, the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws (NORML) and the Family Council on Drug Awareness quickly demanded Lawn's resignation. His successors, Bonner, and now Constantine, retain the same policy.

What hypocrisy allows public officials to scoff at the facts and deny the truth? How do they rationalize their atrocities? How? They invent their own experts.

Government Doublespeak

Since 1976, our federal government (e.g., NIDA, NIH, DEA*, and Action), police sponsored groups (like DARE*), and special interest groups (like PDFA*) have proclaimed to public, press, and parent groups alike that they have "absolute evidence" of the shocking negative effects of marijuana smoking.

* National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, Drug Enforcement Agency, Drug Abuse Resistance Education, Partnership for a Drug Free America. All subsequent researchers found Heath's marijuana findings to be of no value, because carbon monoxide poisoning and other factors were totally left out.

When U.S. government sponsored research prior to 1976 indicated that cannabis was harmless or beneficial, the methodology of how each study was done was always presented in detail in the reports; e.g., read The Therapeutic Potential of Marijuana (1976) and you will see exactly what the methodology of each medical study was.

However, when our government bureaucrats deliberately sponsored negative marijuana research, time and time again Playboy magazine, NORML, High Times, etc. had to sue under the new Freedom of Information Act to find out the actual laboratory methodology these "experiments" employed.

What they found was shocking.

[Rokerijdude11]

http://jackherer.com/chapter15.html


Lingering THC Metabolites

The Hype:

It Stays in Your System for 30 Days

The government also claimed that since "THC metabolites" stay in the body's fatty cells for up to 30 days after ingestion, just one joint was very dangerous; inferring that the long range view of what these THC metabolites eventually could do to the human race could not even be guessed and other pseudo-scientific double-talk (e.g., phrases like: "might be," "could mean," "possibly," "perhaps," etc.)*

* "May, might, could, and possibly are not scientific conclusions." Dr. Fred Oerther, M.D., September 1986.

The Facts:

Government's Own Experts Say That Metabolites Are Non-Toxic, Harmless Residue

We interviewed three doctors of national reputation either currently working (or having worked) for the U.S. government on marijuana research:

- Dr. Thomas Ungerlieder, M.D., UCLA, appointed by Richard Nixon in 1969 to the President's Select Committee on Marijuana, re-appointed by Ford, Carter, and Reagan, and currently head of California's "Marijuana Medical Program;"

- Dr. Donald Tashkin, UCLA, M.D., for the last 29 years the U.S. government's and the world's leading marijuana researcher on pulmonary functions; and

- Dr. Tod Mikuriya, M.D., former national administrator and grant distributor of the U.S. government's marijuana research programs in the late 1960s.

In effect these doctors said that the active ingredients in THC are used-up in the first or second pass through the liver. The leftover THC metabolites then attach themselves, in a very normal way, to fatty deposits, for the body to dispose of later, which is a safe and perfectly natural process.

Many chemicals from foods, herbs, and medicines do this same thing all the time in your body. Most are not dangerous and THC metabolites show less toxic* potential than virtually any known metabolic leftovers in your body!

* The U.S. government has also known since 1946 that the oral dose of cannabis required to kill a mouse is about 40,000 times the dose required to produce typical symptoms of intoxication. (Mikuriya, Tod, Marijuana Medical Papers, 1976; Loewe, journal of Pharmacological and Experimental Therapeutics, October, 1946.)

THC metabolites left in the body can be compared to the ash of a cigarette: The inert ingredient left over after the active cannabinoids have been metabolized by the body. These inert metabolites are what urinary analysis studies show when taken to discharge military or factory or athletic personnel for using, or being in the presence of cannabis within the last 30 days.

Lung Damage Studies

The Hype:

More Harmful Than Tobacco

According to the American Lung Association, cigarettes and tobacco smoking related diseases kill more than 430,000 Americans every year. Fifty million Americans smoke, and 3,000 teens start each day. The Berkeley carcinogenic tar studies of the late 1970s concluded that "marijuana is one-and-a-half times more carcinogenic than tobacco."

The Fact:

Not One Documented Case of Cancer

There are lung irritants involved in any smoke. Cannabis smoke causes mild irritation to the large airways of the lungs. Symptoms disappear when smoking is discontinued.

However, unlike tobacco smoke, cannabis smoke does not cause any changes in the small airways, the area where tobacco smoke causes long term and permanent damage. Additionally, a tobacco smoker will smoke 20 to 60 cigarettes a day, while a heavy marijuana smoker may smoke five to seven joints a day, even less when potent high-quality flower tops are available.

While tens of millions of Americans smoke pot regularly, cannabis has never caused a known case of lung cancer as of December 1997, according to America's foremost lung expert, Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA. He considers the biggest health risk to the lungs would be a person smoking 16 or more "large" spliffs a day of leaf/bud because of the hypoxia of too much smoke and not enough oxygen.

Tashkin feels there is no danger for anyone to worry about potentiating emphysema "in any way" by the use of marijuana totally the opposite of tobacco.

Cannabis is a complex, highly evolved plant. There are some 400 compounds in its smoke. Of these, 60 are presently known to have therapeutic value.

Cannabis may also be eaten, entirely avoiding the irritating effects of smoke. However, four times more of the active ingredients of smoked cannabis are absorbed by the human body than when the same amount is eaten. And the prohibition inflated price of black market cannabis, combined with harsh penalties for cultivation, prevent most persons from being able to afford the luxury of a less efficient, though healthier, means of ingestion.

Lab Studies Fail to Reflect the Real World

Studies have proven that many of the carcinogens in cannabis can be removed by using a water pipe system. Our government omitted this information and its significance when speaking to the press. At the same time politicians outlawed the sale of water pipes, labeling them "drug paraphernalia."

How Rumors Get Started

In 1976, Dr. Tashkin, M.D., UCLA, sent a written report to Dr. Gabriel Nahas at the Rheims, France, Conference on "Potential Cannabis Medical Dangers." That report became the most sensationalized story to come out of this negative world conference on cannabis.

This surprised Tashkin, who had sent the report to the Rheims conference as an afterthought.

What Tashkin reported to the Rheims conference was that only one of the 29 pulmonary areas of the human lung studied the large air passageway Did he find marijuana to be more of an irritant (by 15 times) than tobacco. This figure is insignificant, however, since Tashkin also notes that tobacco has almost no effect on this area. Therefore, 15 times almost nothing is still almost nothing. in any event, cannabis has a positive or neutral effect in most other areas of the lung. (See Chapter 7, "Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis.")

(Tashkin, Dr. Donald, UCLA studies, 1969-83; UCLA Pulmonary Studies, 1969-95.)

Afterwards in 1977, the U.S. government resumed funding for ongoing cannabis pulmonary studies which it had cut two years earlier when Tashkin reported encouraging therapeutic results with marijuana/lung studies. But now the government limited funding only to research to the large air passageway.

We have interviewed Dr. Tashkin dozens of times. In 1986 I asked him about an article he was preparing for the New England Journal of Medicine, indicating that cannabis smoke caused as many or more pre-cancerous lesions as tobacco in "equal" amounts.

Most people do not realize, nor are the media told, that any tissue abnormality (abrasion, eruption, or even redness) is called a pre-cancerous lesion. Unlike lesions caused by tobacco, the THC-related lesions contain no radioactivity.

We asked Tashkin how many persons had gone on to get lung cancer in these or any other studies of long-term cannabis-only smokers (Rastas, Coptics, etc.)

Sitting in his UCLA laboratory, Dr. Tashkin looked at me and said, "That's the strange part. So far no one we've studied has gone on to get lung cancer."

"Was this reported to the press?"

"Well, it's in the article," Dr. Tashkin said. "But no one in the press even asked. They just assumed the worst." His answer to us was still that not one single case of lung cancer in someone who only smoked cannabis, has ever been reported. It should be remembered that he and other doctors had predicted 20 years ago, their certainty that hundreds of thousands of marijuana smokers would by now (1997) have developed lung cancer.

[Truth-Bringer]

Yes, it should be legalized.

And Jack Herer rules!

[palerider]

If you think you can PROVE ANY of what i post on this as WRONG.... feel free to go to the author that i am getting my research from, and collect 100,000,.00 cash IF you can PROVE ANY of it wrong that is........

No problem. From the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

In the study, researchers examined samples of respiratory tract tissue from participants who ranged in age from 21 to 50. To be eligible, the participants had to be in one or more of the following categories: Marijuana smokers who smoked an average of 10 or more marijuana cigarettes a week for the last five years or longer; crack cocaine smokers who smoked one gram or more of crack cocaine a week for nine months or longer within the past year; or tobacco smokers who smoked 20 cigarettes or more a day for the last five years.

The researchers looked at genetic markers known to be associated with increased risk of lung cancer. Changes or overproduction of some markers were found in a majority of the study participants.

The findings suggested that tobacco was not the only smoked substance that set the changes preceding lung cancer development in motion.

The study also showed that habitual smoking of tobacco, marijuana or crack cocaine in combination could potentially lead to more cancerous alterations in the molecular makeup of cellular structure than single-smoking alone.

Dr. Sanford Barsky, co-author of the study and a member of the University of California, Los Angeles' Jonnson Comprehensive Cancer Center, said he was not surprised by the findings. He said any substance that is inhaled, regardless of chemical makeup, releases carcinogens into the lungs and throat.

http://www.cannabisclub.ca/articles/1998_hall_lancet_1.pdf

See also:

Fligiel SEG, Roth MD, Kleerup EC, et al. Tracheobronchial histopathology in habitual smokers of cocaine, marijuana and/or tobacco. Chest 1997; 112: 319–26.

Robison LI, Buckley JD, Daigle AE, et al. Maternal drug use and the risk of childhood nonlympholastic leukemia among offspring: an epidemiologic investigation implicating marijuana. Cancer 1989; 63: 1904–11

Fried PA. Behavioural outcomes in preschool-aged children exposed prenatally to marijuana: a review and speculative interpretation. In: Wetherington CL, Smeriglio CL, Finnegan L, eds. Behavioural studies of drug exposed offspring: methodological issues in human and animal research. NIDA Research Monograph 164. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 1996.

Sridar KS, Raub WA, Weatherby NL, et al. Possible role of marijuana smoking as a carcinogen in the development of lung cancer at an early age. J Psychoactive Drugs 1994; 26: 285–88.

Caplan GA, Brigham BA. Marijuana smoking and carcinoma of the tongue. Is there an association? Cancer 1989; 66: 1005–06.


http://www.cannabisclub.ca/articles/1998_hall_lancet_1.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2649219&dopt=Abstract

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/1999/12/17/pot991217.html

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/16/1198

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/8/12/1071

http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/83/4/637.pdf


Please note that these are medical and scientific studies as opposed to the claims of "Jack Herer" (a man with no scientific credintials at all)

I didn't see where to contact him about collecting the 10K, but it is my bet that he will reneg on his offer.

[9sublime]

[QUOTE=palerider;3856]No problem. From the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

crack cocaine smokers who smoked one gram or more of crack cocaine a week for nine months or longer within the past year

The study also showed that habitual smoking of tobacco, marijuana or crack cocaine in combination could potentially lead to more cancerous alterations in the molecular makeup of cellular structure than single-smoking alone.


[QUOTE]

Yes, but crack cocaine can hardly be compared to marijuana.

Just out of interest, have you ever tried marajuana plaerider? I don't mean this in a patronizing way.

[Rokerijdude11]

No problem. From the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

In the study, researchers examined samples of respiratory tract tissue from participants who ranged in age from 21 to 50. To be eligible, the participants had to be in one or more of the following categories: Marijuana smokers who smoked an average of 10 or more marijuana cigarettes a week for the last five years or longer; crack cocaine smokers who smoked one gram or more of crack cocaine a week for nine months or longer within the past year; or tobacco smokers who smoked 20 cigarettes or more a day for the last five years.

The researchers looked at genetic markers known to be associated with increased risk of lung cancer. Changes or overproduction of some markers were found in a majority (NOT ALL MIND YOU)......of the study participants.

The findings suggested that tobacco was not the only smoked substance that set the changes preceding lung cancer development in motion.

The study also showed that habitual smoking of tobacco, marijuana or crack cocaine (waht ????) in combination could potentially lead to more cancerous alterations in the molecular makeup of cellular structure than single-smoking alone.

In other words.... if any, or all three, of these substances were used together.................there is a POSSIBILITY, that this MAY lead to more cancerous alterations.........Not if you smoke pot, If you smoke it, with the other substances too. IT MAY be more harmful....harldy conclusive anti marijuana evidence here

Dr. Sanford Barsky, co-author of the study and a member of the University of California, Los Angeles' Jonnson Comprehensive Cancer Center, said he was not surprised by the findings. He said any substance that is inhaled, regardless of chemical makeup, releases carcinogens into the lungs and throat.

http://www.cannabisclub.ca/articles/1998_hall_lancet_1.pdf

See also:

Fligiel SEG, Roth MD, Kleerup EC, et al. Tracheobronchial histopathology in habitual smokers of cocaine, marijuana and/or tobacco. Chest 1997; 112: 319–26.

Robison LI, Buckley JD, Daigle AE, et al. Maternal drug use and the risk of childhood nonlympholastic leukemia among offspring: an epidemiologic investigation implicating marijuana. Cancer 1989; 63: 1904–11

Im not suggesting anyone should smoke marijuana while they are carrying a unborn child so this is just some common sense here dosent prove anything..... btw again- may, could, possibly, all words that dont PROVE anything

Fried PA. Behavioural outcomes in preschool-aged children exposed prenatally to marijuana: a review and speculative interpretation. In: Wetherington CL, Smeriglio CL, Finnegan L, eds. Behavioural studies of drug exposed offspring: methodological issues in human and animal research. NIDA Research Monograph 164. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 1996.

Sridar KS, Raub WA, Weatherby NL, et al. Possible role of marijuana smoking as a carcinogen in the development of lung cancer at an early age. J Psychoactive Drugs 1994; 26: 285–88.

Caplan GA, Brigham BA. Marijuana smoking and carcinoma of the tongue. Is there an association? Cancer 1989; 66: 1005–06.


http://www.cannabisclub.ca/articles/1998_hall_lancet_1.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2649219&dopt=Abstract

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/1999/12/17/pot991217.html

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/16/1198

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/8/12/1071

http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/83/4/637.pdf


Please note that these are medical and scientific studies as opposed to the claims of "Jack Herer" (a man with no scientific credintials at all)

I didn't see where to contact him about collecting the 10K, but it is my bet that he will reneg on his offer.

No No go to jack herer tell him hes wrong about whatever it is you seem to think you have him on, and collect your money.....its quite simple The money is yours you have to PROVE, beyond the shadow of a doubt 100%....

That He is wrong and he will pay you ........why debate it with me? when all this money is on the line? I say your pretty much flat out WRONG!! Sorry buddy the stats above say it all PERIOD.... You take your lil blurb, and go collect the dough now.....................ohhhhh you cant because your wrong !!!

sorry Jack Herer is THE FOREMOST Authority on this subject!!
you are just some guy on the internet

all of his information comes from the federal government
Btw its a 100,000.00 challenge and here it is http://jackherer.com/index.html

[vyo476]

No No go to jack herer tell him hes wrong abot whatever it is you seem to think you have him on and collect your money.....its quite simple The money is yours you have to PRVE beyond the shadow of a doubt 100% that he is wrong and he will pay you ........why debate it with me when all this money is on the line i say your pretty much flat out WRONG sorry buddy the stats above say it all PERIOD you take your lil blurb and go collect the dough now.....................ohhhhh you cant because your wrong

sorry Jack Herer is THE FOREMOST Authority on this subject you are just some guy on the internet

Unfortunately, it is impossible to prove anything one hundred percent, beyond a shadow of a doubt, etc. That goes for such seemingly rudimentary things as proving that water is wet. I know, I know, major differences here, but the concept still applies - there will always be room for argument in everything and therefore Mr. Herer will never have to pay out that money.

[Rokerijdude11]

Unfortunately, it is impossible to prove anything one hundred percent, beyond a shadow of a doubt, etc. That goes for such seemingly rudimentary things as proving that water is wet. I know, I know, major differences here, but the concept still applies - there will always be room for argument in everything and therefore Mr. Herer will never have to pay out that money.

the challenge is in the link read it and if anyone can take the challenge do it Jak Herer is the Authority on this period

[Everylyric]

Unfortunately, it is impossible to prove anything one hundred percent, beyond a shadow of a doubt, etc. That goes for such seemingly rudimentary things as proving that water is wet. I know, I know, major differences here, but the concept still applies - there will always be room for argument in everything and therefore Mr. Herer will never have to pay out that money.

It is possible to prove things one hundred percent.

[vyo476]

It is possible to prove things one hundred percent.

How is it possible to prove things one hundred percent?

[9sublime]

A big problem with pot being illegal, and even more so with other drugs is that they are unstandardised.

Nobody knows the strength, and the average user just does it by smell until they actually take the stuff and then there is no way back.

If alcohol was illegal, smell would be the only way to judge it, and that would be pretty dangerous.

If drugs like heroin were standardised before they hit the streets overdoes rates would be almost nothing compared to now.

[Grounded]

How is it possible to prove things one hundred percent?

There are tautologies. They are true by the fact that they are true.

For example, let there be a variable: a.

a = a is true by definition. We can prove it 100%.

It's like saying that an ipod is an ipod by definition. We assigned the definition, so it must be true.

[Grounded]

A big problem with pot being illegal, and even more so with other drugs is that they are unstandardised.

Nobody knows the strength, and the average user just does it by smell until they actually take the stuff and then there is no way back.

If alcohol was illegal, smell would be the only way to judge it, and that would be pretty dangerous.

If drugs like heroin were standardised before they hit the streets overdoes rates would be almost nothing compared to now.

What do you mean by standardized?

[Rokerijdude11]

The only differences in Marijuana that means anything, are the Strains of the plant being smoked. Many strains have been bred particularly for medicinal usage. They contain thc levels SOMETIMES in the 25-30 % range....


Average MJ is in the 15-20% bracket.. All that this means, is that the Medicinal plants contain more of the active THC than theyre cousins. In effect they are stronger ,or more concentrated ....which only means, it takes less harmful smoke in your lungs to achieve the maximum Medicinal benefits.....or the fastest Buzz if you are a recreational user..this lessens the need to be smoking so much plant material.

these strains were originally intended for Medicinal use.
They have found theyre way into the mainstream, with BC buds, and many other well known strains..marijuana has gotten better, by being more concentrated....this concentration does NOT affect the overall makeup of the plant. However it does improve the plants flowers, just like one would do in an garden.



Grounded; You obviously dont know much about this issue by the nature of your response......you CANNOT tell squat by Smelling anything....you can tell how potent it is, by the calyx ratio, and how many visible crystals, there are on the buds ....you can smoke the strongest medicinal weed, and all that will happen is youll get stoned 3 times FASTER ,and need 3 times LESS weed , in order to get there.....



What many of you will need to get past, is first the LIES of Prohibition..... go ahead read the chapters at jacks site the emporer wears no clothes what are you afraid of?

2.You will need to learn to differentiate between Hemp, and Marijuana.

3. You will then need to differentiate between Medicinal use, and recreational Use

4. You will have to get past 60 year old rhetorics

5. Then take a look at the Dutch Drug policy, and its success rate....

many of you have a LOT to learn to even begin to try and debate this issue

[9sublime]

When you buy the stuff you don't usually go test the caylx ratio you just smoke it. So you quickly try to tell its potencey by its visible crystals, and its smell, which are both very innaccurate.

And when you pick up some cannabis, you don't know what strain you are getting a lot of the time, or its THC content so you just smoke it and hope it does the trick.

If you bought it from a pharamacy, you would know what strength you are getting because it is standardized. This would be more useful with drugs on which you can easily overdoes like heroin though.

[Rokerijdude11]

there is no way to "standardize" as your dealing with a plant there are far too many variables involved for such a thing even with the same genetics and conditions three growers will turn out three different products
calx ratio is easy to see in high grade buds as you can tell by looking at the buds themselves agreed you dont know if your getting 10% thc or 30

well where i am from and at my point in the ball game i always know what strain im dealing with. But then Ive been involved with the plant and its use for over 30 years
and have been associated with some of the worlds best growers and learned from some of the best in the world I have actually smoked with jacke herer on a few occaisions while in amsterdam

the closest youll get to standardization is guaranteed strains and theyre associated charecteristics, similar to what you describe but because we are dealing with plants and different growers the results will always vary


unless of course you want to go the way ou food has gone and allow intensive research and develpoment to even further geneticall alter the plant but if your going to all of that bother you need to just change your thinking



and learn to wrap your head around Ice Water Hasj or "Bubble hasj" as its copied version is called this method removes all of the plant material and leaves JUST the trichomes afterwards leaving you 70-95% pure THC this is the strobgest most reliable method of regulating THC intake that im aware of it eliminates the question marks of the plant material itself leaving just the potency of the thc itself


you would have a far better chance of having the percentage that way I am not for the genetic altering of the plant beyond Breeding new strains....i think messing with the genetic make-up to try to acieve a standard is just not realistic

then you might as well take the New Pills or lozenges or sprays being tried By G.W. Pharmecueticals out of england they are currently conducting clinical trials for a replacement for marinol the current pill form

which BTW does NOT have the success rate that normal Mj and medicinal Mj do suggesting a difference in the manner of introduction...marinol is widely reported as Un reliable and not working well for its paitients

[9sublime]

Yeah well when I was a regular user the area where I live never had a consistent supply, and so you got different strains every week. But at least THC content could be tested and you would know for sure before you bought the stuff from a pharamacy.

Anyway, this wouldn't be that useful with cannabis, because if its too powerful all you're gunna do is be sick and pass out ha!

[palerider]

Yes, but crack cocaine can hardly be compared to marijuana.

True, but the study clearly stated that pot alone was highly suspect as well. And then there are the rest of the scientific studies that I posted.

Just out of interest, have you ever tried marajuana plaerider? I don't mean this in a patronizing way.

Yes I have. I was a child of the 60's. But because I did a thing, does not mean that I am prevented from learning from it. A great deal of research has been done and the fact is that a very large body of evidence is coming forward that suggests very strongly that pot can cause cancer of the head and neck and the lungs.

[palerider]

sorry Jack Herer is THE FOREMOST Authority on this subject!!
you are just some guy on the internet

Describe Jack's credentials and the scientific studies and papers that he has written. I have looked as much as possible on the internet and can find no evidence of him recieving any higher education at all, unless smoking dope constitutes "higher" education. When we are discussing the physiological effects of various chemical compounds upon living tissue and the possible ramifications of those effects, a man with no education on the subject can hardly be called the "FOREMOST" authority. In fact, in the face of any one of these papers conducted by medical doctors, and phD's in various bodies of hard science, the opinion of Jack Herer is inconsequential to the point of being completely irrelavent.

Don't even begin to try and argue that Jack Herer knows more about the effect of chemicals on the human body than the doctors in any one of the dozen or so credible scientific sources I cited.

all of his information comes from the federal government


Sorry guy, it would be tough for you to be more wrong.

This one comes from the Lancet. One of the foremost medical journals in the world. Second only to the New England Journal of medicine.

http://www.cannabisclub.ca/articles/...l_lancet_1.pdf

This one is from a medical journal dealing with cancer, not the government.

Fligiel SEG, Roth MD, Kleerup EC, et al. Tracheobronchial histopathology in habitual smokers of cocaine, marijuana and/or tobacco. Chest 1997; 112: 319–26.

This one is from an oncological (cancer) medical journal, not the government.

Robison LI, Buckley JD, Daigle AE, et al. Maternal drug use and the risk of childhood nonlympholastic leukemia among offspring: an epidemiologic investigation implicating marijuana. Cancer 1989; 63: 1904–11

This one is from a medical journal dealing specifically with the use and effects of drugs, not the government.

Sridar KS, Raub WA, Weatherby NL, et al. Possible role of marijuana smoking as a carcinogen in the development of lung cancer at an early age. J Psychoactive Drugs 1994; 26: 285–88.

This one is from an oncological medical journal, not the government.

Caplan GA, Brigham BA. Marijuana smoking and carcinoma of the tongue. Is there an association? Cancer 1989; 66: 1005–06.

The research posted on "pub med" is not government research even though the address is pubmed.gov. Pub med is simply a central clearing house for independent research dissimination among the world medical and research community. pubmed.gov does no research on their own and publishes nothing on their own.

This one is published by the Oxford Medical Journal.

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/c...act/90/16/1198

This one is from the American Association for Cancer Research. Again, not a government organization.

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/con...ract/8/12/1071

And this one is also from the Oxford Medical Journal.

http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/83/4/637.pdf


In fact, I don't believe anything that I listed represents government research. But if all I posted was government research, your argument that information is not valid just because it comes from the government constitutes an ad hominem circumstantial attack and would not be a valid argument. Information can not be discounted based on nothing more than the source.

[9sublime]

But as a former user, you must know that pot is quite a low level psychoactive it terms of its effects and addictive properties compared to crack cocaine?

And so any study that combines results is not going to be the most accurate when it comes to pot?

The fact is that the US and UK drug policies do not work very effectivley, while the Dutch have done much better. And the zero tolerance level on hard drugs isn't working because if I wanted cocaine, ecstasy, marijuana, ketamin etc. I could very easily get it, and have been able to since I was about 13 and I live in a small countryside town.

[palerider]

Rokerijdude11, I want you to take a look at the stuff you have posted as evidence for your case. Most of it is 20 years old. Medical research has come a long way since then. The fact is that a large (and growing) body of evidence is putting the lie to the myth that pot is harmless.

[palerider]

But as a former user, you must know that pot is quite a low level psychoactive it terms of its effects and addictive properties compared to crack cocaine?

The issue isn't how high you get, the issue is that pot isn't the "harmless" plant that it has been made out to be.

And so any study that combines results is not going to be the most accurate when it comes to pot?

Review the studies I listed. The bulk of them are on pot alone.

The fact is that the US and UK drug policies do not work very effectivley, while the Dutch have done much better. And the zero tolerance level on hard drugs isn't working because if I wanted cocaine, ecstasy, marijuana, ketamin etc. I could very easily get it, and have been able to since I was about 13 and I live in a small countryside town.

The dutch are growing some very serious, and expensive, social problems of their own as a result of their decisions. Junkies are flooding holland from all over europe and they aren't coming there because they have postitive contributions to make to the country.

And just because it is possible to skirt the law and do a thing is not a valid reason for making a thing legal.

[9sublime]

If everywhere followed the same route as Holland, the Dutch wouldn't have to bear the brunt of all these junkies.

[Rokerijdude11]

Describe Jack's credentials and the scientific studies and papers that he has written. I have looked as much as possible on the internet and can find no evidence of him recieving any higher education at all, unless smoking dope constitutes "higher" education. When we are discussing the physiological effects of various chemical compounds upon living tissue and the possible ramifications of those effects, a man with no education on the subject can hardly be called the "FOREMOST" authority. In fact, in the face of any one of these papers conducted by medical doctors, and phD's in various bodies of hard science, the opinion of Jack Herer is inconsequential to the point of being completely irrelavent.

Don't even begin to try and argue that Jack Herer knows more about the effect of chemicals on the human body than the doctors in any one of the dozen or so credible scientific sources I cited.



Sorry guy, it would be tough for you to be more wrong.

This one comes from the Lancet. One of the foremost medical journals in the world. Second only to the New England Journal of medicine.

http://www.cannabisclub.ca/articles/...l_lancet_1.pdf

This one is from a medical journal dealing with cancer, not the government.

Fligiel SEG, Roth MD, Kleerup EC, et al. Tracheobronchial histopathology in habitual smokers of cocaine, marijuana and/or tobacco. Chest 1997; 112: 319–26.

This one is from an oncological (cancer) medical journal, not the government.

Robison LI, Buckley JD, Daigle AE, et al. Maternal drug use and the risk of childhood nonlympholastic leukemia among offspring: an epidemiologic investigation implicating marijuana. Cancer 1989; 63: 1904–11

This one is from a medical journal dealing specifically with the use and effects of drugs, not the government.

Sridar KS, Raub WA, Weatherby NL, et al. Possible role of marijuana smoking as a carcinogen in the development of lung cancer at an early age. J Psychoactive Drugs 1994; 26: 285–88.

This one is from an oncological medical journal, not the government.

Caplan GA, Brigham BA. Marijuana smoking and carcinoma of the tongue. Is there an association? Cancer 1989; 66: 1005–06.

The research posted on "pub med" is not government research even though the address is pubmed.gov. Pub med is simply a central clearing house for independent research dissimination among the world medical and research community. pubmed.gov does no research on their own and publishes nothing on their own.

This one is published by the Oxford Medical Journal.

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/c...act/90/16/1198

This one is from the American Association for Cancer Research. Again, not a government organization.

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/con...ract/8/12/1071

And this one is also from the Oxford Medical Journal.

http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/83/4/637.pdf


In fact, I don't believe anything that I listed represents government research. But if all I posted was government research, your argument that information is not valid just because it comes from the government constitutes an ad hominem circumstantial attack and would not be a valid argument. Information can not be discounted based on nothing more than the source.
Dont bother wasting your breath debating me.... I dont have $100,000.00 to give to you if you win.Jack Does!! Go on big guy go collect it.......Jack Himself stated this in his challenge , that is where he gets his information.
apparently you didnt bother to read it...? The challenge is clear, read it and then collect if you can! but you cant..
and you wont.

Instead youll continue to impress yourself with your writing skill. and youll try to impart your flawwed Opinion
upon myself and others. if you are SO CONVINCED that you know more and better than Jack By all means go collect your cash.Dont waste valuable resources trying to convince me. Im a living 30 some odd year experiment




Nothing you can say will change my views NOTHING....thats just the way it is,Ill tell you though your welcome to be all you can be .take the challenge collect the dough show us how wrong i am by doing that

[Rokerijdude11]

Rokerijdude11, I want you to take a look at the stuff you have posted as evidence for your case. Most of it is 20 years old. Medical research has come a long way since then. The fact is that a large (and growing) body of evidence is putting the lie to the myth that pot is harmless.

Its quite allright much of the evidence most people post is old ........why? because there are NO sanctioned governement studies to base them on. i dont buy any of the hype Im walking breathing living proof. that all of this is Crap,Im a 30+ yrs daily smoker....health is fine no cancers, i dont do any hard drugs, i dont drink,dont smoke tobacco,dont have memory loss,have an above average I.Q., am productive member in society..

[Rokerijdude11]

If everywhere followed the same route as Holland, the Dutch wouldn't have to bear the brunt of all these junkies.

this is a fallacy....I have been to the netherlands every year since 1990 there are no more junkies on the streets like there USED to be in the early 90,s. The problem has been addressed fairly well do they have a fair share of junkies? perhaps junkies looking to try and get off of smack as the netherlands works with theyre junkies to try and help them get clean

[9sublime]

The dutch are growing some very serious, and expensive, social problems of their own as a result of their decisions. Junkies are flooding holland from all over europe and they aren't coming there because they have postitive contributions to make to the country.


I was saying this in response to this comment. If we all had the same drug policy as the Dutch, then they wouldn't all go to Holland like palerider says.

[palerider]

Nothing you can say will change my views NOTHING....thats just the way it is,Ill tell you though your welcome to be all you can be .take the challenge collect the dough show us how wrong i am by doing that

Of course nothing will change your views. They are based in faith rather than any scientific evidence and I am not going to try and make you give up your faith.

And jack is full of crap. He will never pay.

[palerider]

Its quite allright much of the evidence most people post is old ........why? because there are NO sanctioned governement studies to base them on. i dont buy any of the hype Im walking breathing living proof. that all of this is Crap,Im a 30+ yrs daily smoker....health is fine no cancers, i dont do any hard drugs, i dont drink,dont smoke tobacco,dont have memory loss,have an above average I.Q., am productive member in society..

And I had been away from the military for almost 30 years when I developed cancer as the result of exposure to chemicals in the military. For a very long time, I thought that I could say that I was walking, breathing, living proof that being the danger of military exposure to chemicals was hype as well. You don't get to say that you are proof of anyting until you know. At present, you don't know and any suggestion that you do is fantasy.

The evidence is growing all the time that you are quite simply, wrong.

One other thing. I won't dispute that you have a higher than average IQ. My bet is that most of the people here do. But having a high IQ isn't protection from doing things that are less than bright. Placing your faith in jack's opinion above credible scientific evidence is one of those things. Jack has no education that would lend him any credibility in a scientific discussion about the dangers of smoking anything. He is like the 90 year old that has smoked 3 packs of non filtered camels since he was 12 telling us that smoking cigarettes doesn't cause cancer. Admittedly, it didn't cause cancer in him, but that doesn't represent any proof at all that smoking doesn't cause cancer. Just as the fact that you don't have cancer yet is only proof that you don't have cancer yet and nothing more.

[Rokerijdude11]

Actually being that you have no sanctioned studies to support you, any further than i do..... quite simply your wrong.I see you have still yet to collect the money from Jack instead you decided you will try and impress people with YOUR OPINIONS rather than address jack with the facts.why because you simply dont have these facts. or else you would be famous which you arent as here you are wasting valuable time with ME !!!


Being harmed by chemical agents, designed to Kill things is in no way, a fair Comparison to smoking some pot.Im not placing my faith in Jack.........


I have LIVED the life, my WHOLE life, I am completly able to speak on the issue myself, without any input of Jacks. As i say Im a living experiment that stands to the testament, that the lies they propogate are BUNK SCIENCE!!

They havent been scientifically studied at all, the US Government dosent allow that experimentation......it would completly expose them for theyre lies.....i have no cancers, no ill health, no tumors, no memory loss (except maybe when im REALLY Baked)......I havent migrated over to cocaine ,extasy, and heroin.....Nor do i do ANY hard drugs...........

I only occaionally drink and then only mageritas!!! I have held a succesful Job, in a high tech, hi paced environment for years.Ive raised a family, all of the above while smoking pot!! and to this day not one ill effect, no addictions ,and no migration to hard drugs..

i am active in political reform for marijuana legalization. i have studied the Dutch model, as well as having travelled to Amsterdam more than a dozen times...



I am active in the medicinal Mj movement as well, and am well connected to some heavy players in all of these areas. As i say i have LIVED the life, MY WHOLE life ....NOTHING you can produce, will alleviate the FACTS that concern the issues....comparing the effects of defoliants inhaled 30 yrs ago to smoking pot is CRAZY speak!!

frankly its you who is wrong,and you cant see the forest through the trees.

[9sublime]

i have no cancers, no ill health, no tumors, no memory loss (except maybe when im REALLY Baked)......I havent migrated over to cocaine ,extasy, and heroin.....Nor do i do ANY hard drugs...........

I only occaionally drink and then only mageritas!!! I have held a succesful Job, in a high tech, hi paced environment for years.Ive raised a family, all of the above while smoking pot!! and to this day not one ill effect, no addictions ,and no migration to hard drugs..


"I never raped anybody, never killed anybody, laughed my ASS off and went about my day!"
- some famous comedian whos name I can't find on him doing drugs.

The only real media attention drugs get is the bad stuff because it makes good news.

An estimated 500,000 people take ecstasy in the UK every weekend, and only6 have died in 10 years from ecstasy posining in the last 10 years, and another 81 from ectasy related death (lethal cocktails, dehydration, too much fluid to the brain). That means that 91 people have died from ecstasy in 10 years out of the

500,000 a week x 4 weeks x 12 months x 10 years = 240,000,000 times people have taken ecstasy, only 91 have died in the UK. I'm sure more people have died from over the counter methadone than that, so why isn't it legal so people know whats it cut with?

Ecstasy and coke are the most commonly used drugs in which people can have no idea what is in it, making it potentially unsafe to take it. If pills were made by the government, people would know the strength of them and that they were pure resulting in less deaths.

[palerider]

I am active in the medicinal Mj movement as well, and am well connected to some heavy players in all of these areas. As i say i have LIVED the life, MY WHOLE life ....NOTHING you can produce, will alleviate the FACTS that concern the issues....comparing the effects of defoliants inhaled 30 yrs ago to smoking pot is CRAZY speak!!

frankly its you who is wrong,and you cant see the forest through the trees.

You are an anecdote Rokerijdude, nothing more.

And I wasn't comparing the effects of defoliants to pot use. I was pointing out that I didn't have cancer either, until I did. Simple as that. Right up till the time I was diagnosed, I could point at the studies that said that agent orange could cause cancer and dismiss them because I didn't have cancer...yet.

At this point, the best you can do is say that pot hasn't given you cancer...yet. The body of science is growing all the time and to suggest that because we can't experiment on people, we will never know is clear evidence that you don't know much about modern research techniques. We know all sorts of things can cause cancer without doing human experiments.

And jack is a meaningless side issue here. He is a know nothing with a big mouth. He will never pay his bet exactly because he is a no nothing with a big mouth.

[Rokerijdude11]

well at this point based on your theory......I could have also developed cancer from simply breathing in our polluted air.
I find the comparison acceptable as the air we breathe is Hella polluted and im sure that given time enough we will also be able to prove that Breathing causes cancer


Or drinking filtered water or eating organically grown spinach.
I mean where shall we stop? I possibly could have developed cancer from eating too much Cauliflower,we just dont know as of yet because the studies have been done yet to support this.

the air we breathe sitting in traffic stopped in a traffic jam or at a light in a crowded city are certainly more caustic and possibly cancer causing......the actuality is there is SUBSTANTIAL proof that car exhaust can and does cause cancer



based on the current argument then we should outlaw automoblies...as well as cauliflower and hell maybe we should even restrict the use of filtered water to those over 18 yrs of age?


yes there are many many things that COULD possibly be causing cancer maybe we should identify them all villanize them lie about the results and the Prohibit them?


there havent been ANY United States Government supported research cases with marijuana whether animal or man the Feds wont allow it to happen any research they are using to support theyre theory is second hand info from other source countries

Jack is EXTREMLY Knowledgable and very Intelligent your off handed assesments of a man whom youve never spent time with is useless drivel...it is simply more of YOUR OPINION while your welcomed to it so am i allowed my own opinion and before i touch on it ill say this one should never cast stones when one does not know where they are being cast....


quite simply Jack Herer Is VERY WELL KNOWN and widely regarded as the AUTHORITY on the Prohibition of Hemp and Marijauana he is an activist hes well spoken well read and has written other things besides the emporer wears no clothes I have met him and spent time with him


I have studied his writings and philosophy of the prohibition Of Mj and Hemp I have Lived the life all my life and frankly sir its YOU who is the "Know" Nothing

see how its spelled? Know Nothing Big Mouth at this point appears to be YOU ....you have dismally failed in your attempt at overbearing this conversation quite simply because you really dont know what your talking about and your in way over your head thats why you have resorted to personally attacking my friend Jack

you have shown your true colors Mr Know Nothing

[Rokerijdude11]

"I never raped anybody, never killed anybody, laughed my ASS off and went about my day!"
- some famous comedian whos name I can't find on him doing drugs.

The only real media attention drugs get is the bad stuff because it makes good news.

An estimated 500,000 people take ecstasy in the UK every weekend, and only6 have died in 10 years from ecstasy posining in the last 10 years, and another 81 from ectasy related death (lethal cocktails, dehydration, too much fluid to the brain). That means that 91 people have died from ecstasy in 10 years out of the

500,000 a week x 4 weeks x 12 months x 10 years = 240,000,000 times people have taken ecstasy, only 91 have died in the UK. I'm sure more people have died from over the counter methadone than that, so why isn't it legal so people know whats it cut with?

Ecstasy and coke are the most commonly used drugs in which people can have no idea what is in it, making it potentially unsafe to take it. If pills were made by the government, people would know the strength of them and that they were pure resulting in less deaths.

Xtacy and cocaine .............................

Have Absolutly NOTHING to do with Marijuana?
whats your point?

[palerider]

Jack is EXTREMLY Knowledgable and very Intelligent your off handed assesments of a man whom youve never spent time with is useless drivel...it is simply more of YOUR OPINION while your welcomed to it so am i allowed my own opinion and before i touch on it ill say this one should never cast stones when one does not know where they are being cast....

Jack is an uneducated activist who doesn't even acknowledge that a growing body of research is indicating very strongly that he is wrong.


quite simply Jack Herer Is VERY WELL KNOWN and widely regarded as the AUTHORITY on the Prohibition of Hemp and Marijauana he is an activist hes well spoken well read and has written other things besides the emporer wears no clothes I have met him and spent time with him

Jack's "professional" opinion on the dangers of pot are about as valid as barbara streisand's "professional" opinion on global warming.


I have studied his writings and philosophy of the prohibition Of Mj and Hemp I have Lived the life all my life and frankly sir its YOU who is the "Know" Nothing

A philosophy that doesn't acknowledge a growing body of valid scientific research that is challenging everything he says is hardly a valid philosophy. Unless you consider flat earthers valid.

[9sublime]

Xtacy and cocaine .............................

Have Absolutly NOTHING to do with Marijuana?
whats your point?

Just saying that the media highlight the dangers of drugs when more people probably die from perscription drugs than ecstasy. Expanding the debait, if you will.

[Rokerijdude11]

Jack is an uneducated activist who doesn't even acknowledge that a growing body of research is indicating very strongly that he is wrong.

Oh really? when was the last time you talked to Jack? I mean you seem to know so so much about him? Un-Educated!!!..hardly your lack of any type of actual responses, is a testament to your shortcomings when it comes to this subject....You may be well versed, and educated in some areas. Ill give you that. But this is NOT one of those areas!! .As The readers can clearly see, you have simply been reduced to, Attacking a man whom you dont even know..............He is wrong you say?.........on which one of the hundreds of points, and information that are contained within the book?


Let me directly ask you...........HAVE YOU READ THE BOOK THE EMPORER WEARS NO CLOTHES?

Not parts of it,..... not paragraphs of it,....... not the introduction .....Have you read the book? The answer is completly obvious, by your rambling nonsensical answers.......the Only Uneducated man in this thread at this point appears to be YOU....Im sorry but thats how its shaping up with each post


Jack's "professional" opinion on the dangers of pot are about as valid as barbara streisand's "professional" opinion on global warming.

No actually Jacks opinions are based On Real life experience as well as US government Information and documentation as well as ,Several sanctioned actual REAL TIME studies done in other countries... Jacks information concerning the lies that catapaulted the prohibition of Mj and Hemp is Non debatable it is documented and well proven.....his work regarding the issue of hemp saving the world is un-parralelled


its only the sheep who buy into the rhetorics who dont see the obviousness of what has been done in this country.we havent even scratched the surface of this. because you arent educated enough to get past the jack dosent know **** part of the program..when you actually THINK you have a grasp on this and want to actually TRY and debate me on the "dangers" of marijuana you let me know


as of this time you are woefully Un-educated and therefore Un-able to debate.I completly understand. its ok not to know everything gimme a shout when you THINK you may be ready ok?


A philosophy that doesn't acknowledge a growing body of valid scientific research that is challenging everything he says is hardly a valid philosophy. Unless you consider flat earthers valid.

again your Ignorance of the realities of what Jack has writtent about surfaces like a slug in a heavy rain storm. So Now ill ask you again? have you spoken to Jack recently? Im not so sure this last statement of yours holds any truth at all? and as we can clearly see you are Un-able to take Jacks Challenge......its a shame actually I really enjoy it when you flat earthers try and assert yourselves but then shrink from direct challenge...Instead you have decided to argue with "some guy" on a website.....it goes a long way to showing us how un-educated you really are on this particular subject



As i say i find you to be fairly well educated on many subjects and enjoy most of what you write But on this particular subject your just embarrassing yourself.....
whenever you want to get past the Jack dosent know **** stage and you want to really delve into the meat of this let me know Id suggest you readt the book beforehand though

its the only way you are going to learn anything of truth

come back later wwhen you can actually attempt a debate at this point all you are doing is trying to assert yourself and insulting someone whom you dont even know and who cant re-but your Insultuos manners....it goes way way beyond smoking some pot to catch a buzz saprky

soo soo much deeper wake up and take a good look sparky

[Rokerijdude11]

Just saying that the media highlight the dangers of drugs when more people probably die from perscription drugs than ecstasy. Expanding the debait, if you will.

sorry i follow your angle now thanks for clarification

[9sublime]

No worries. Never actually taken ecstasy myself though. Are you still a regular user of cannabis roker?

[Rokerijdude11]

ive smoked pot every day basically since sometime in summer 1976 there were some exceptions of course there was a few years i set it aside as i was a jet engine mechanic and Aircrewman on a Naval S.A. R. squadron based in guam

Yes i smoke daily as i say i have no other vices im not a beer drinker dont do any other drugs i havent tried extacy either or heroin or ghb i did try cocaine a few times in the early 80s not my gig..i also experimented with some LSD in the late seventies just before my Naval enlistment

since returning from overseas i havent done any drugs other than getting high.........well i ate some mushrooms in Amsterdam back in 2000 just to see what that was all about

there are appropriate times to get high and others to be straight i have been smoking long enough to differentiate between the two....im not out riding or driving while getting stoned although there have been times i have had to drive while stoned in my 30+ years of smoking


i do not make it a habit..I dont get high before or during work.generally after 4;20 in the afternoon when business has been completed for the day...dont get high in front of my kids or with them.

so far my open attitude with my kids has worked just fine my 25 yr old does not get high.she tried it for a while and then stopped my 18 year old has gone through 3 stages now and currently is on a no smoke regimen

i dont preach to them and they not to me I dont smoke tobacco although i did for some almost 30 years i have been nicotine free for almost 3 yrs now so yes in the eveining while most folks are having a beer or a glass of wine and relaxing i am smoking a bowl and relaxing


there was a time when it was everything to me and I probably should have had more restraint but overall it hasnt really hampered my ability to live life although recently the laws and insurance companies have gotten ferverent and are making it almost impossible for one to pull off what i have all my life


drug testing is prevalent in all walks of life even if you own your own business the insurance comapny will still nail you even the Unions relented and let insurance companies
dicttate how company policy is written


It is no longer good enough that you only do these things on your "OFF" time .they dont care.they want you towing the line regardless its a fabulous marriage of corporations/Government/Insurance they control what and how we do everything

In todays world its Much more difficult to do what i have done
and Quite frankly NOT ALL PEOPLE are able to Use marijuana responsibly and for that reason its Not for everybody.It works for me it quite possibly will not for you
or others you know it is truly an individual choice and these days not one to be taken lightly


I do not suggest that it is ok for children to use it,or pregnat women ,or those with complications of the respiratory system unless they are using medicinally and compensating for such

there are 3 distinct areas that all relate when it comes to marijuana Recreational,Medicinal, and then the hemp cousin plant and its Industrial uses.....sorry for such a long response.....this is a subject that i am VERY VERY well educated in and i tend to ramble on my soapbox

[palerider]

Just saying that the media highlight the dangers of drugs when more people probably die from perscription drugs than ecstasy. Expanding the debait, if you will.


Of course, people who die from Rx drugs are already experiencing health problems.

[palerider]

Oh really? when was the last time you talked to Jack? I mean you seem to know so so much about him? Un-Educated!!!..hardly your lack of any type of actual responses, is a testament to your shortcomings when it comes to this subject....You may be well versed, and educated in some areas. Ill give you that. But this is NOT one of those areas!! .As The readers can clearly see, you have simply been reduced to, Attacking a man whom you dont even know..............He is wrong you say?.........on which one of the hundreds of points, and information that are contained within the book?

I asked you to describe his education. You didn't. He doesn't describe any education on his site. If he were educated, don't you think he would mention it? You have suggested that a man who apparently doesn't even have an associates degree is the foremost authority on this subject in the face of teams of doctors and research scientists who say that pot is dangerous.

How credible do you think that this makes your argument?

[Rokerijdude11]

I asked you to describe his education. You didn't. He doesn't describe any education on his site. If he were educated, don't you think he would mention it? You have suggested that a man who apparently doesn't even have an associates degree is the foremost authority on this subject in the face of teams of doctors and research scientists who say that pot is dangerous.

How credible do you think that this makes your argument?

Read the book ..show me ANYONE anywhere that is more knowlwedgable on these Subjects than Jack Herer....READ THE BOOK.........youll change your tune i know you will.I have read enough of your stuff and see where you stand on things YOU NEED to read the book.........then your Answers will be revealed......

you have YET to SHOW US ANY scientist or doctors who have Proven any of what Jack says is wrong.........you talk about them but then you cannot produce the PROOF required its Ok I Understand and i know why

Read the Book and then try again your really ineffectual in this debate...your ass is hangin in the breeze so to speak.Sorry this is not one of your areas of expertise im afraid

[Rokerijdude11]

A philosophy that doesn't acknowledge a growing body of valid scientific research that is challenging everything he says is hardly a valid philosophy. Unless you consider flat earthers valid.

"challenging everything he says"? Man im so positive now that you have never read the book, and really have NO real idea what jack says, and dosent say. Yet here you are spewing about as if you Know something...listen pops you really dont have clue....go ahead then and quit asserting yourself here GO COLLECT THE CASH.................or simply go and read the book you dont know what your talking about its obvious by your responses

[PLC1]

ive smoked pot every day basically since sometime in summer 1976 there were some exceptions of course there was a few years i set it aside as i was a jet engine mechanic and Aircrewman on a Naval S.A. R. squadron based in guam



Did you used to use capital letters and punctuation before smoking pot so much? Just curious.:p

Smoking pot is a bad idea, but outlawing it is a worse one. Prohibition of cannibis hasn't worked any better than prohibition of alcohol, and has created some of the same problems.

We should legalize it and tax it to pay for the social ills it creates, but we won't. Any pol who seriously suggests legalization, and has a chance of passing it, would be the political target of the right wing. Should the right wing miss, then they would be come the physical target of the drug kingpins.

Legalization? Fugitaboutid.

[vyo476]

Did you used to use capital letters and punctuation before smoking pot so much? Just curious.:p


I think we've been over this...

[palerider]

We should legalize it and tax it to pay for the social ills it creates, but we won't. Any pol who seriously suggests legalization, and has a chance of passing it, would be the political target of the right wing. Should the right wing miss, then they would be come the physical target of the drug kingpins.



Legalize it and use the tax revenue to pay for the problems that legalizing it will cause. Can you tell me exactly what sort of logic that is?

[Rokerijdude11]

Did you used to use capital letters and punctuation before smoking pot so much? Just curious.:p

Duhhhhh.... HUH HUH HUH which way did he go george? which way did he go?.....................How Typical, since we Are Un-able to really debate the issue, ....LETS attack him for his grammatical errors!!!! yeah thats the ticket!!!!!..............Pfffft.


Smoking pot is a bad idea,

Would you care to expound on this OH Exhalted Dare Graduate? Or is this simply your opinion?
Sounds like the Dare program speaking to me


but outlawing it is a worse one. Prohibition of cannibis hasn't worked any better than prohibition of alcohol, and has created some of the same problems.
Congartualations!! you actually recognize the failure of prohibition so you have payed some attention ...Excellent


We should legalize it and tax it to pay for the social ills it creates, but we won't.
whoops theres DARE rearing its ugly head again.....would you care to expound on this issue as well? ............interesting

"social ills it creates" have any substantiated evidence to support this outlandish claim? or are we again dealing in opinions?

Any pol who seriously suggests legalization, and has a chance of passing it, would be the political target of the right wing. Should the right wing miss, then they would be come the physical target of the drug kingpins.

Legalization? Fugitaboutid.
HMMMMMMM........well friend you seem rather Un-educated in the realities of Marijauna and Hemp prohibition

My suggestion to you is to READ THE BOOK and then Read it again http://www.jackherer.com/chapters.html

you will actually then have an idea maybe about what your actually saying

[Rokerijdude11]

Legalize it and use the tax revenue to pay for the problems that legalizing it will cause. Can you tell me exactly what sort of logic that is?

what Problems will legalization cause? NONE that im aware of look at the Dutch Drug policy and its continued success...
the United States is the ONLY country that adopted this Prohibition when it was enacted...it was enacted to create corporate profits By the HEARST family Dupont Family as well as others


The united States is almost single handidly responsible for pushing these views GLOBALLY ...you all have been LIED TO

read the BOOK quit talking out your asses

none of you thus far Knows Diddly sh^t on this subject

[palerider]

what Problems will legalization cause? NONE that im aware of look at the Dutch Drug policy and its continued success...
the United States is the ONLY country that adopted this Prohibition when it was enacted...it was enacted to create corporate profits By the HEARST family Dupont Family as well as others


The united States is almost single handidly responsible for pushing these views GLOBALLY ...you all have been LIED TO

read the BOOK quit talking out your asses

none of you thus far Knows Diddly sh^t on this subject

I have looked at the Dutch. There is a growing faction within their government seeking to repeal the legalization of drugs because of the unintended consequences.

[9sublime]

Legalize it and use the tax revenue to pay for the problems that legalizing it will cause. Can you tell me exactly what sort of logic that is?


Instead of having little kids buying it off sketchy dealers, you can make sure the laws are as tight as American alcohol laws, which are VERY strict compared to Europe and seem to work well, even if I disagree with the age limit etc.

And the government would probably make more money than it would need to spend on rehab etc. for the problems cannabis will cause as they are low level.

[PLC1]

HMMMMMMM........well friend you seem rather Un-educated in the realities of Marijauna and Hemp prohibition

My suggestion to you is to READ THE BOOK and then Read it again http://www.jackherer.com/chapters.html

you will actually then have an idea maybe about what your actually saying

Well, there's a fact filled and convincing argument.:rolleyes:

Say, Roker, you don't smoke the stuff before flying, do you?

[Rokerijdude11]

I have looked at the Dutch. There is a growing faction within their government seeking to repeal the legalization of drugs because of the unintended consequences.

This is because of CONTINUED pressure from the United States as well as the New Conservative party that controls Holland Currently this talk has been going on since 2000

there have been NO changes to the Dutch policy IT works and it works well.The Dutch will not in the end be swayed By U.S Policy the Current Dutch admin may sqwauk about it But the Dutch people are not that stupid they will never support a change in the direction of US policy PERIOD

second of all let me correct your Misgivings on this subject ok? because again you dont know what your talking about ok? lets start here shall we.....

Drugs are NOT LEGAL in Amsterdam....there is forst of all a complete seperation of "Hard" and "Soft" drugs...Hard drugs are completly Illegal.the Dutch Government supports and runs a program that takes hard drug users and rehabilitates them they provide everything from the clinic to the drugs that are used to wean the users andall the food etc.


any hard Drugs you may encounter on the streets of Amsterdam are HIGHLY ILLEGAL and in all probability are NOT what you pay for it is only Criminals who are on the streets trying to hawk Coaine and heroin and there arent that many of them

Moving on to the soft drug policy which encompasses marijuana,Hashish,mushrooms,peyote, etc. the marijuana and hashis is legal to be purchased in regulated Coffee shoppes only....there are no street dealers for hash or pot because the need has been entirely eliminated by allowing the purchase of 5 grams or less at coffeeshoppes


these shoppes are government regualated and conrolled and pay taxes etc to the Dutch . they do not allow persons under 18 yrs of age inside the shoppes this is STRICTLY enforced. the rub on all soft drugs is they are all availible at approved Outlets which COMPLETLY eliminates the criminal element from being involved

since the inception of the Dutch Model Life In amsterdam and Rotterdam has Improved immensly some 20 yrs ago when i first started travelling there the streets were littered with Junkies and Drug Dealers at every corner


today this is NON-Existent Vondel park used to be the mecca for illegal drugs in amsterdam that has all changed the streets are clean the junkies are gone and so too are the street dealers


the intersting thing is the soft drug success.The reality is the MAJORITY of the Dutch people do NOT even smoke pot!even with it widely availible it just dosent happen that way Look at the statistics on this and you will see how startling and true it is moving on to Dutch teenagers


they too are NOT heavy users of marijuana the number of dutch teens smoking is far far less than in the US.
now back to the legality issues...

First of all it is ILLEGAL to GROW and Harvest Marijuana In holland


does it happen? of course it does the Dutch do something they call turning a blind eye. they do go after those that are in it strictly for the large scale ops but they ALLOW a certain numbe of growers to grow.......


BUT IT IS ILLEGAL


it is ALSO ILLEGAL for a COFFEESHOPPE OWNER TO PURCHASE QUANTITY for resale

so technically shop owners are Breaking the Law when they purchase the pot to sell to customers

this practice is called "Toleration" it is illegal but they Tolerate it because it makes sense to keep it regulated

here is the ONLY LEGAL PART INVOLVED

IT IS LEGAL to SELL and PURCHASE 5 Grams of POT or Hash while inside of a sanctioned coffee shoppe

that is LEgally accepted while the aquiring of the pot by the shop was illegal....the selling of the pot to the shop was illegal growing or importing the pot was illegal
Purchasing 5 grams of it is LEGAL
smoking it in the shoppe or in your home is again illegal yet "Tolerated"


so in large part Drugs technically are ILLEGAL in Holland and throughout the Dutch Model its obvious once again that you are woefully Mis informed on this subject


the Duth Models success stems from its seperation of Hard and soft drugs its abilty to largely ignore the harmless plants that grow on this earth and categorize them as Softand regulate theyre sales

what you speak of is Simply More interference on the part of the United States Government I was In Amsterdam in 2000 when the U.S. Drug Czar...yes we all him a Czar
was in amsterdam trying to apply pressure to the Dutch Government that is where this all stems from the dutch told him to go squat they have put it down since

small story I was in the Jolly Joker Coffeeshoppe at 9 pm one night a HUGE entourage of SS and agents whisked in and "cleared" the shop then the "Czar " came in quite arrogant too Leather Bomber Jacket fur hood all john wayne like in his percieved greatness he stood right next to me as he looked around the place


he directly addressed me and said beautiful night huh? i said sure is beats Chi Towns weather !! he changed his demeanor and squinted and looked at me and said your American? I said Sure am Skippy glad to meet you!

he looked at em and said the following well there you hippy punk....i hope your enjoying your stay in holland because when we are through your lil haven will cease to exist!!!

I said oh really? who the Fuc^k are You?!!he said i am the United States drug czar......and we are here in diplomatic talks with the dutch to eliminate this type of activity here in holland ......I laughed at him and told him GOOD LUCK the Dutch are not Sheep..............he said something to the guy across from us he produced a camera and snapped a pic of me and my friends McCaffery Sneered and began to walk out he turned to me one last time and sneered again


When i returned home I read all the news concerning the drug czars diplomatic trip to holland it was all tru what he had said and there he was Minus the bomber jacket in a suit the very same guy that addressed me and sneered at me......so its the US that is pushing this and because it is currently conservative there they seem to have a few ears that listen

The Dutch People will not allow any change in this succesful policy

so again you really havent looked at the Dutch Model you caught Googling again you are ILL prepared to debate this i keep telling you so

[Rokerijdude11]

Instead of having little kids buying it off sketchy dealers, you can make sure the laws are as tight as American alcohol laws, which are VERY strict compared to Europe and seem to work well, even if I disagree with the age limit etc.

And the government would probably make more money than it would need to spend on rehab etc. for the problems cannabis will cause as they are low level.

That is the basic premise of the Dutch Model .seperate Hard from Soft take the illegality out of it eliminate the criminal element and collect the revenues quite simple and brilliant

[Rokerijdude11]

Well, there's a fact filled and convincing argument.:rolleyes:
I have continued throughout the thread, to provide information, and facts.... You on the other hand have done NOTHING but insult. you must be a CHILD?


Say, Roker, you don't smoke the stuff before flying, do you?



ohhhh OUCH that really hurts what are you an eight grader?
Maybe if you had actually read my posts you would Know that i answered that question directly here allow me to quote that for your simple mind ok?

there were some exceptions of course there was a few years i set it aside as i was a jet engine mechanic and Aircrewman on a Naval S.A. R. squadron based in guam

I dont know how much more clear than that i can be? you are actually far worse than palerider!!!! You DONT KNOW A F^CKING thing about this subject !!!!all you have done since you enetered the thread is behave like a child?

When you actually have a point worth addressing in the future, ill respond to you. for now your just a kid, on daddys pc you dont know ANYTHING................

[USMC the Almighty]

[b][color=red]!!!!all you have done since you enetered the thread is behave like a child?


Talk about acting like a child. You're the one who changes fonts/colors/sizes/faces every sentence and calls people names at every opportunity. It would really make it easier for everyone to both read/understand your posts, and respond to them if you followed the intended format for responses and without the sophomoric quips.

[Rokerijdude11]

do you have anything of substance for the Discussion? No i didnt think so you dont like the colors? too bad, it defines my answers from the O.P

you are alos Un-educated in this area i am to assume from your meaningless drivel of an answer.......




So i have been calling people names through this thread? really??????? intersting the only thing i have mentioned, is that some of you are Un-Educated, in the subject? hardly name calling at all!! Simply a fact that is revealing itself...... have a nice day
try again buddy? you aint got nothing

[USMC the Almighty]

I was just pointing out the irony in you calling someone else a child. In no way do I intend to interfere iwth the discussion, but that one shot was just too much. Carry on...

[9sublime]

I don't see how changing the colour of his font makes his point any less valid.

It's not the colour of the point you are making, its the point itself.

Waste of a post USMC. So why don't you stay out of the discussion in future rather than coming out with **** stirring little comments that disrupt the flow. PLC1 is a big enough tit when it comes to ruining a debate with stupid little comments as it is without your useless input.

[Rokerijdude11]

sophmoric quips? certainly you are referring to our good friend plc? these are two of his responses thus far.......nothing like playing favorites hey sparky?




PLC says:

Did you used to use capital letters and punctuation before smoking pot so much?





PlC says:

Say, Roker, you don't smoke the stuff before flying, do you?



Funny how many of you are Un-Educated in this area im sorry your un-able to read the book? that seems to be an issue for all of you .None have reda the book yet all feel they are qualified to respond to something they know nothing about


How Bout you mr USMC have YOU read the BOOK?

no didnt think so

have a nice day

btw how you folks ever intend on floating this site with your Gang tactics on responding to people is questionable

Funny how i am fending off whordes of you at every turn Im quite sure this is very attractive to prospective new members!!!!

Im sure they LOve seeing if they post a point of view they will have to battle virtually the whole site especially if they know what theyre talking about

[Rokerijdude11]

I was just pointing out the irony in you calling someone else a child. In no way do I intend to interfere iwth the discussion, but that one shot was just too much. Carry on...

Ill ask you again Directly


WHERE IN THIS THREAD WAS I CALLING ANYONE NAMES???

answer please or Stay off the porch

[USMC the Almighty]

Ill ask you again Directly


WHERE IN THIS THREAD WAS I CALLING ANYONE NAMES???

answer please or Stay off the porch

You're right, Roker, we should all emulate your righteous and noble posting style. You never call names, belittle other posters, or disrespect them personally.

I wasn't going to say anything about namecalling until you made a big deal out of some little comment, PLC1 made.

Here's a brief overview of the type of honorable posting in this thread that you bless us all with:

To Palerider:

“you have shown your true colors Mr Know Nothing”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4329&postcount=68

“the Only Uneducated man in this thread at this point appears to be YOU”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4349&postcount=72

“its only the sheep…”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4349&postcount=72

“because you arent educated enough”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4349&postcount=72

“you are woefully Un-educated”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4349&postcount=72

“again your Ignorance of the realities of what Jack has writtent about surfaces like a slug in a heavy rain storm.”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4349&postcount=72

“I really enjoy it when you flat earthers try and assert yourselves but then shrink from direct challenge”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4349&postcount=72

“none of you thus far Knows Diddly sh^t on this subject”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4463&postcount=84


To PLC1:

“Would you care to expound on this OH Exhalted Dare Graduate?”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4462&postcount=83

“…you seem rather Un-educated…”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4462&postcount=83

“you must be a CHILD?”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4486&postcount=90

“ohhhh OUCH that really hurts what are you an eight grader?”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4486&postcount=90

“your just a kid, on daddys pc”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4486&postcount=90

And here’s the gamebreaker:

“all you have done since you enetered the thread is behave like a child?”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4486&postcount=90

[9sublime]

Ok, so he likes calling people uneducated.

you like basing your judgement on people on the colour of their post.

i think we can see which one is more ignorant.

[USMC the Almighty]

Ok, so he likes calling people uneducated.

you like basing your judgement on people on the colour of their post.

i think we can see which one is more ignorant.

Ok, you're clearly just siding with him because you agree with him politically. At any rate, I don't base any judgement on this color of the post. I still consider his posts as if they were written by a sober person in normal faced/colored font. I just found it humrous that he was calling someone else a child.

[9sublime]

No I'm agreeing with him because you wade in here with a stupid comment like that which has no relevance to anything just to stir up some **** like a child.

Now can we stop having a slagging match however funny it might become and get back to what this forum is for.

[Rokerijdude11]

You're right, Roker, we should all emulate your righteous and noble posting style. You never call names, belittle other posters, or disrespect them personally.
Great then lets see what we can find here shall we?
I wasn't going to say anything about namecalling until you made a big deal out of some little comment, PLC1 made.

Here's a brief overview of the type of honorable posting in this thread that you bless us all with:

To Palerider:

“you have shown your true colors Mr Know Nothing”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4329&postcount=68

Mr. Know Nothing...hmmmmmm wow what a name ? whew ill try and refrain from such derrogatory inflammatory names in the future



“the Only Uneducated man in this thread at this point appears to be YOU”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4349&postcount=72



On the subject we were discussing HE IS UN-EDUCATED? simple fact sorry




“its only the sheep…”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4349&postcount=72

this was a "GENERAL" statement not directed at anyone in particular so again not really name calling then




“because you arent educated enough”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4349&postcount=72


Because you not educated enough???????? This is calling someone a name? It is stating a fact, that is becoming clear. He is not educated enough, to respond in a manner that will be of any use


“you are woefully Un-educated”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4349&postcount=72

Try again..........simply stating, that on the subject being discussed, the individual is not educated well enough, to respond.Its simply an observation, not a name calling as you suggest

“


again your Ignorance of the realities of what Jack has writtent about surfaces like a slug in a heavy rain storm.”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4349&postcount=72


Ummmmm......If id said your Ignorant, id have been calling him a name... Ignorance is not calling a name, it is a description of something.. again your out of context sorry

And surfacing like a slug, in heavy rain storm.. is in no way a direct inferrance, or name calling either. its a "saying" a "phrase" again to describe something




“I really enjoy it when you flat earthers try and assert yourselves but then shrink from direct challenge”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4349&postcount=72


OHHH yes i used the EXACT term, Mr. Palerider addressed me with .......eye for an eye, He called it first. I just sent it back to him? no harm, no foul, passed between


“none of you thus far Knows Diddly sh^t on this subject”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4463&postcount=84

okay? where is the name calling here? they DONT KNOW DIDDLY SH^T? where did i call someone a name???????????


To PLC1:

“Would you care to expound on this OH Exhalted Dare Graduate?”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4462&postcount=83
,

well ill be........... calling someone a dare graduate, is considered name calling? Wow ill bet your kids dont think so?


“…you seem rather Un-educated…”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4462&postcount=83

Again Un -educated is not a name .nor is it name calling ???Its an Observation


“you must be a CHILD?”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4486&postcount=90


this is calling names? wow dude twisted your bonnet too tight huh?......asking you must be a child? is calling someone a name? And calling one a child, is name calling? wtf are you drinking?



“ohhhh OUCH that really hurts what are you an eight grader?”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4486&postcount=90


wow called someone an eighth grader get out the soap bar...get real


“your just a kid, on daddys pc”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4486&postcount=90
of course agin this is an OBSERVATIONARY statement? I didnt call him any names?
And here’s the gamebreaker:

“all you have done since you enetered the thread is behave like a child?”
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4486&postcount=90

wow......gamebreaker indeed .i called him a ....... a................. a CHILD!!! Oh MY how horrible? give me a break go away your not interested in the subject your interested in diverting attention

whatever dude have a gret day i will im goin for a ride sun is shing its 75 degrees

knees in the breeze boys have a good one cya later on

[USMC the Almighty]

[b] wow......gamebreaker indeed .i called him a ....... a................. a CHILD!!! Oh MY how horrible?

You and sublime just don't get it, do you. I never said that your namecalling is "oh so horrible". Of course it's mild to what you were really thinking. But it serves to strengthen my point that you are being hypocritical in calling someone else a child, when you act more childish than anyone on this bord.

give me a break go away your not interested in the subject your interested in diverting attention

I am very interested in the subject. In fact, that Milton Friedman video single-handedly changed my opinion on this subject.

[PLC1]

Ok, so he likes calling people uneducated.

you like basing your judgement on people on the colour of their post.

i think we can see which one is more ignorant.

I believe the discussion was about legalizing pot, not about the personalities of the debaters on this forum.

If a correspondent wants to be taken seriously, then the way to accomplish that should be to have valid arguments, backed up by facts, and written in standard English. I usually don't comment on that last one, but when someone writes in an ungrammatical fashion while extolling the virtues of pot smoking, it does raise the question of whether that writer simply never learned the conventions of writing, or whether his brain is so addled on pot that he can no longer apply them.

Changing the color, size, or case of the font doesn't change the message being written one way or another.;)

[9sublime]

You and sublime just don't get it, do you. I never said that your namecalling is "oh so horrible".


Neither did I, this was about accusing someones views of being invalid because of the colour of their font.

[Rokerijdude11]

I believe the discussion was about legalizing pot, not about the personalities of the debaters on this forum.


Really? Wasnt that you who was taking pot shots at my grammar? This isnt school buddy, this is the real world.....wasnt it you making snyde remarks about smoking po,t while being in the navy? When was it exactly, that YOU, were discussing anything about the legalization of marijauana? .....Because we all seem to have missed that part of the conversation.



If a correspondent wants to be taken seriously, then the way to accomplish that should be to have valid arguments, backed up by facts, and written in standard English. I usually don't comment on that last one, but when someone writes in an ungrammatical fashion while extolling the virtues of pot smoking, it does raise the question of whether that writer simply never learned the conventions of writing, or whether his brain is so addled on pot that he can no longer apply them.




my my my a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black i see.....No matter.You are using this as

1.) A Cop out as your simply not educated enough about the subject to actually debate it

2.)totally doing what it is you all are accusing me of

3.) proving to us how you simply dont Know enough about the subject or else you would be debating it as you suggest this is what the purpose of the thread was....

[b] [color=red]

Changing the color, size, or case of the font doesn't change the message being written one way or another.;)

well thank you for that maybe your friend USMC should take a harder look at his position huh? have a nice day

watch out for the Grammar police!!!!


Pfffft whatever





FYI ................I was already In BOOTCAMP 3 weeks BEFORE i was 17 been on my own since freshman year.....the rest of high school really wasnt a priority at that time....I dint go back for my GED until i was over 40 yrs old..... so the grammar? too bad charlie I didnt have the luxury of school like you. i was busy serving our country.
and reality is in my world Grammar dosent really account for a whole lot...sorry i live in a real world. have a nice day

[9sublime]

I believe the discussion was about legalizing pot, not about the personalities of the debaters on this forum.

If a correspondent wants to be taken seriously, then the way to accomplish that should be to have valid arguments, backed up by facts, and written in standard English. I usually don't comment on that last one, but when someone writes in an ungrammatical fashion while extolling the virtues of pot smoking, it does raise the question of whether that writer simply never learned the conventions of writing, or whether his brain is so addled on pot that he can no longer apply them.

Changing the color, size, or case of the font doesn't change the message being written one way or another.;)


Ok ok I wasn't going to get involved in this but you are unbelievable.

First of all, you changed the subject because someone didn't use perfect grammer on an internet forum where it is commonplace to shorten words, use imperfect grammer etc. as long as it is perfectley understandable. So it's you who changed this from pot. Nice one.

And I think this man knows how to write and the basics of grammer as he has managed to gain enough money in his life to buy a computer, connect it up to the internet and get through life.

And by the sound of it you've never smoked pot in your life, or you have and you tweaked out on it hardcore and went home back to your parents basement to sit around catching people out on their grammer to make up for your lack of knowledge on the subject, or even what you believe.

You wade in here, change the subject to grammer, then accuse us of being off topic before accusing this man of being such a stoner he can barely write. What kind of world do you live in son?

[9sublime]

And back on topic, a nice reason to allow medical marijuana.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/212301.stm

[palerider]

This is because of CONTINUED pressure from the United States as well as the New Conservative party that controls Holland Currently this talk has been going on since 2000




No it is because the junkies are hurting the tourist trade. And the rehab programs are becoming far more costly than anyone ever dreamed they woud be.

[palerider]

do you have anything of substance for the Discussion? No i didnt think so you dont like the colors? too bad, it defines my answers from the O.P

I think your color changes are just fine. If they harken you back to your crayon days, then by all means use them. But then dopers really don't ever leave their crayond days behind...do they?

[Rokerijdude11]

No it is because the junkies are hurting the tourist trade. And the rehab programs are becoming far more costly than anyone ever dreamed they woud be.
YES the United States, and its Drug Czar, have been applying pressure to the Dutch Government since 2000...after the Bush Admin took over and appointed the New czar.... that is a documented fact..... the U.S. Sent the Drug Czar, to Amsterdam, and the hague, to apply pressure ,pertaining to the tolerated drug use in holland. ....I was there during the visit. I saw, and spoke with him myself..It was reported in the news, both in Holland, as well as at home. Your quite simply Mis-informed on this aspect of the whole thing...


This is a FALLACY there is No Longer a Junkie Presence. I touched on this in one of my posts .Yes at one time there WAS a defenite issue, with Junkies Hurting tourism. That is why the dutch Model came to be. They are off the streets .They no longer live in Vondel park. How many times have you been to Amsterdam? When was the last time you were there? Do you Know any Local Amsterdammers?

Have you spent any amount of time there? i.e a month or more? I have. and I also have many local friends. what you are implying, just isnt true my friend. Ive been there more times than the average American.I have stayed as long as 3 months at once...

I saw with my own eyes, how the street situation improved Both In Amsterdam, and in Rotterdam. The junkies no longer are lying in the streets. The Smack dealers are no longer wandering the streets hawking theyre wares..Now it has been reduced to mainly Poor immigrants, usually from very poor countries who try and hawk coke, and Xtacy, In the red light district at night.


They are very visible, very well known, and widely IGNORED by locals, and tourists alike!! In the early eighties ,there were still issues with some of the junkies ...that has been cleared, and the streets kept clean of junkies..

They are all basically situated in one general area now.
All of the Dutchs medical is expensive they provide health and welfare to all citizens equally, in a socialist sort of manner.... They pay dearly with high taxes, to support these programs.... yet the Dutch are perfectly fine with this as theyre system works quite well for them.


they are far more free than we have ever been in this country .....They take a secret pride in knowing so also . they laugh at The notion that we are Free in the united states....not all of them but quite a few .they are far more progressive than we are also .they ar on par with technology.there Culture is wonderful the History Rich and ancient..


In the United States what it boils down to these days is this

You are as "Free" as you can afford to be

freedom is now bought as a commodity it is no loger automatic the privelaged are those who can say they are free yet they still are only as free as they can afford to be



the other way to be free in america?

By being poor and self sufficent like in areas of the catskills and areas of the appalachians as material wealt and trappings that most of you claw for greedily every day ......have little to NO value to these poor people they are rich in life

[Rokerijdude11]

I think your color changes are just fine. If they harken you back to your crayon days, then by all means use them. But then dopers really don't ever leave their crayond days behind...do they?

you see...............MY MY arent we so SMUG!!! are you proud of what you wrote? Wow you really should be.It was well.....Trite!! Did you think that all up on your own? wow!! yes sir we have the makings of a fine discussion here ....


Gee lets call him a doper everyone!!! yeah a no good stoner man!!!!!! yeah hes a loser man!!!!!!! dope fiend............Stoner.........freak..........hip py...........flower child............druggie...................pothead ..............


the argument or debate has already been won BY ME as you all have devolved to insults and innuendo nice try though really. good effort. please try again

[Rokerijdude11]

??????????????
tripple posts

[Rokerijdude11]

???????/?????sorry

[Rokerijdude11]

No it is because the junkies are hurting the tourist trade. And the rehab programs are becoming far more costly than anyone ever dreamed they woud be.
YES the United States, and its Drug Czar, have been applying pressure to the Dutch Government since 2000...after the Bush Admin took over and appointed the New czar.... that is a documented fact..... the U.S. Sent the Drug Czar, to Amsterdam, and the hague, to apply pressure ,pertaining to the tolerated drug use in holland. ....I was there during the visit. I saw, and spoke with him myself..It was reported in the news, both in Holland, as well as at home. Your quite simply Mis-informed on this aspect of the whole thing...


This is a FALLACY there is No Longer a Junkie Presence. I touched on this in one of my posts .Yes at one time there WAS a defenite issue, with Junkies Hurting tourism. That is why the dutch Model came to be. They are off the streets .They no longer live in Vondel park. How many times have you been to Amsterdam? When was the last time you were there? Do you Know any Local Amsterdammers?

Have you spent any amount of time there? i.e a month or more? I have. and I also have many local friends. what you are implying, just isnt true my friend. Ive been there more times than the average American.I have stayed as long as 3 months at once...

I saw with my own eyes, how the street situation improved Both In Amsterdam, and in Rotterdam. The junkies no longer are lying in the streets. The Smack dealers are no longer wandering the streets hawking theyre wares..Now it has been reduced to mainly Poor immigrants, usually from very poor countries who try and hawk coke, and Xtacy, In the red light district at night.


They are very visible, very well known, and widely IGNORED by locals, and tourists alike!! In the early eighties ,there were still issues with some of the junkies ...that has been cleared, and the streets kept clean of junkies..

They are all basically situated in one general area now.
All of the Dutchs medical is expensive they provide health and welfare to all citizens equally, in a socialist sort of manner.... They pay dearly with high taxes, to support these programs.... yet the Dutch are perfectly fine with this as theyre system works quite well for them.


they are far more free than we have ever been in this country .....They take a secret pride in knowing so also . they laugh at The notion that we are Free in the united states....not all of them but quite a few .they are far more progressive than we are also .they ar on par with technology.there Culture is wonderful the History Rich and ancient..


In the United States what it boils down to these days is this

You are as "Free" as you can afford to be

freedom is now bought as a commodity it is no loger automatic the privelaged are those who can say they are free yet they still are only as free as they can afford to be



the other way to be free in america?

By being poor and self sufficent like in areas of the catskills and areas of the appalachians as material wealt and trappings that most of you claw for greedily every day ......have little to NO value to these poor people they are rich in life

[9sublime]

I think your color changes are just fine. If they harken you back to your crayon days, then by all means use them. But then dopers really don't ever leave their crayond days behind...do they?


Yeah it just shows with you. Child of the 60's, smoked a bit of pot and is now a backward thinking convservatist scared of change.

[palerider]

Yeah it just shows with you. Child of the 60's, smoked a bit of pot and is now a backward thinking convservatist scared of change.

Backward thinking. Is that what you call learning something from your mistakes? If I hit my thumb with a hammer, is it backwards thinking to avoid hitting my thumb again, and warning others about the dangers of not watching out for their thumbs?

Your arguments get weaker and weaker and are tilting now towards personal insult rather than any argument at all.

[Rokerijdude11]

excuse us ..................


what was that last comment ou posted about Crayons and sh^t?


and he has devolved to insult you need a reality check pal

BTW your as Dumb as a box of rocks on this subject you should leave the thread

[9sublime]

No, but when a idea comes around that is new, untested, or a fresh approach people like you bat it off because you don't want to risk it. Bit like a cat, scared of change.

And as for personal insults, you've basically accused roker of being braindead because he smokes a bit of skunk.

[Truth-Bringer]

shetland pony rider is once again doing his usual fearmongering against any peaceful behavior he disagrees with... I'm shocked...NOT!

Drugs were once completely legal in this country. There was no mass chaos or mass crime as a result:

Drugs Once Were Legal: A Comparison to the Current Drug Crisis

by Harry Browne

Few people are aware that before World War I, a 9-year-old girl could walk into a drug store and buy heroin.

That's right – heroin. She didn't need a doctor's prescription or a note from her parents. She could buy it right off the shelf. Bayer and other large drug companies sold heroin as a pain-reliever and sedative in measured doses – just the way aspirin is sold today. Cocaine, opium, and marijuana were readily available as well. No Drug Enforcement Agency, no undercover cops, no "Parents – the Anti-Drug" commercials. Just people going about their own business is whatever way they chose.

Seeing today's never-ending crisis of teenagers using drugs, you can imagine how bad it must have been when there were no laws to stop children – or adults – from using drugs. But, in fact, there was no drug crisis at all. A few people were addicted to heroin or cocaine, just as a few people today are addicted to sleeping pills or Big Macs, but there was no national uproar about it. Such people, if they wanted to break their habits, could freely consult doctors without fear of being sent to prison.

There were no black-market drug dealers preying on school children. There were no gang wars over drug profits, because there were no drug gangs. After all, who would buy dangerous drugs from a gangster at outrageous prices when he could buy safe drugs made by a reputable drug company at modest prices?

Americans got a taste of what a Drug War might be like when they endorsed the 18th Amendment invoking alcohol Prohibition in 1919. The result was gang warfare, people dying from drinking bathtub gin, corruption in police departments, and non-violent citizens sent to prison for indulging in a vice that was strictly personal. Most Americans rejoiced when Prohibition was repealed in 1933. The chances of them supporting another such Constitutional amendment within the next 50 years were slim to none.

So the federal government didn't dare try amending the Constitution when politicians and bureaucrats decided to reinstate all the trappings of Prohibition in a new Drug War. This War That Will Never End was begun in stages – probably starting with the rarely-enforced Harrison Act of 1914. In my recollection, the Drug War as we know it today began during the 1960s, moved into second and third gears during the Nixon administration of 1969–1974, and shifted into overdrive during the Reagan administration of 1981–1989.

The Drug War has been easily the greatest cause of violent crime in American history: Gangs fighting over monopoly territories, children killed in drive-by shootings, families in the inner city living with the constant sound of gunfire outside their doors, police killing innocent people in misguided drug raids, crooked cops helping to spread poisonous drugs, non-violent citizens sent to prison to be terrorized by violent prisoners – none of which would exist in the absence of the federal drug laws.

There is nothing that could make our cities safer than repealing the drug laws – all of them.

Does the idea of heroin, cocaine, and opium being sold over the counter sound too ludicrous to be true? You can check it out for yourself. A marvelous website, maintained by the University of Buffalo's Addiction Research Unit, shows the actual labels and ads from patent medicines of the 19th and early-20th centuries. You can see the claims made, the ingredients used, and the acceptance of what so many Americans fear today.

That era of innocence didn't end because America was threatened by a drug crisis. It was ended in the traditional way – by politicians looking for new worlds to conquer, politicians who have no interest in examining dispassionately the chaos they cause, and who will never face a single personal consequence for the lives they have ruined.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/browne/browne32.html

[Truth-Bringer]

But then dopers

I've never used drugs myself. I don't even drink (or smoke). But I don't own other people and have no right to control their actions if those actions are peaceful and don't directly threaten me. I would certainly try to persuade other people that using drugs is not the best choice. However, I would not hold a gun to their head, or send the guns of government after them, if they ignored me and went to their home to smoke a joint.

[God]

I created it for a reason didn't I?

[9sublime]

we've got a bit of a comedian here havn't we.

[Truth-Bringer]

we've got a bit of a comedian here havn't we.

No, we've got a worthless, retarded troll here.

[God]

US: Pot Shrinks Tumors; Government Knew In '74
( Wednesday, March 28, The United States Supreme Court rules on whether marijuana use for medicinal purposes can be a valid defense on charges of marijuana possession. The following article was listed as one of the top 25 censored stories of the year 2000. We reprint it here and pose the question, why would the government want to keep us from knowing this? )

The term medical marijuana took on dramatic new meaning in February 2000, when researchers in Madrid announced they had destroyed incurable brain tumors in rats by injecting them with THC, the active ingredient in cannabis.

The Madrid study marks only the second time that THC has been administered to tumor-bearing animals. In 1974, researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institutes of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice -- lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukemia.

The DEA quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis/tumor research, according to Jack Herer, who reports on the events in his book, The Emperor Wears No Clothes. In 1976, President Gerald Ford put an end to all public cannabis research and granted exclusive research rights to major pharmaceutical companies, who set out -- unsuccessfully -- to develop synthetic forms of THC that would deliver all the medical benefits without the "high."

The Madrid researchers reported in the March issue of Nature Medicine that they injected the brains of 45 rats with cancer cells, producing tumors whose presence they confirmed through magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI ). On the 12th day they injected 15 of the rats with THC and 15 with Win-55,212-2, a synthetic compound similar to THC. "All the rats left untreated uniformly died 12-18 days after glioma ( brain cancer ) cell inoculation ... Cannabinoid ( THC )-treated rats survived significantly longer than control rats. THC administration was ineffective in three rats, which died by days 16-18. Nine of the THC-treated rats surpassed the time of death of untreated rats, and survived up to 19-35 days. Moreover, the tumor was completely eradicated in three of the treated rats." The rats treated with Win-55,212-2 showed similar results.

The Spanish researchers, led by Dr. Manuel Guzman of Complutense University, also irrigated healthy rats' brains with large doses of THC for seven days, to test for harmful biochemical or neurological effects. They found none.

"Careful MRI analysis of all those tumor-free rats showed no sign of damage related to necrosis, edema, infection or trauma ... We also examined other potential side effects of cannabinoid administration. In both tumor-free and tumor-bearing rats, cannabinoid administration induced no substantial change in behavioral parameters such as motor coordination or physical activity. Food and water intake, as well as body weight gain, were unaffected during and after cannabinoid delivery. Likewise, the general hematological profiles of cannabinoid-treated rats were normal. Thus, neither biochemical parameters nor markers of tissue damage changed substantially during the seven-day delivery period or for at least two months after cannabinoid treatment ended."

Guzman's investigation is the only time since the 1974 Virginia study that THC has been administered to live, tumor-bearing animals. ( The Spanish researchers cite a 1998 study in which cannabinoids inhibited breast cancer cell proliferation, but that was a "petri dish" experiment that didn't involve live subjects. )

In an e-mail interview for this story, the Madrid researcher said he had heard of the Virginia study, but had never been able to locate literature on it. Hence, the Nature Medicine article characterizes the new study as the first on tumor-laden animals and doesn't cite the 1974 Virginia investigation.

"I am aware of the existence of that research. In fact I have attempted many times to obtain the journal article on the original investigation by these people, but it has proven impossible," Guzman said.

In 1983, the Reagan/Bush Administration tried to persuade American universities and researchers to destroy all 1966-76 cannabis research work, including compendiums in libraries, reports Jack Herer, who states, "We know that large amounts of information have since disappeared."

Guzman provided the title of the work -- "Antineoplastic activity of cannabinoids," an article in a 1975 Journal of the National Cancer Institute -- and this writer obtained a copy at the University of California medical school library in Davis and faxed it to Madrid.

The summary of the Virginia study begins, "Lewis lung adenocarcinoma growth was retarded by the oral administration of tetrahydrocannabinol ( THC ) and cannabinol ( CBN )" -- two types of cannabinoids, a family of active components in marijuana. "Mice treated for 20 consecutive days with THC and CBN had reduced primary tumor size."

....


http://www.mapinc.org/newscc/v01/n572/a11.html


'nuff said.

[9sublime]

Good stuff

[Rokerijdude11]

good article thanks for posting it for the readers

[vyo476]

I just saw this and thought I'd throw it out there for everyone to ponder on:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070426/hl_nm/marijuana_strength_dc

[Rokerijdude11]

A few Quotes from the so called expert on the subject they produded

Volkow's institute has been studying the effects of cannabis, whose active ingredients are very similar to important brain chemicals called endogenous cannabinoids. "It clearly is addictive," she said.

Thats it? It clearly is addictive? thats the basis of her argument? where is the supportive science in this claim? there is none frankly.this in nothing but an un-substantiated statement

If children and adolescents use marijuana, it could affect their still-developing brains, she said.

Youll Notice the statement .....It "COULD" affect....Could hardly a conclusive statement? again an un-substantiated claim that also is non conclusive hardly any proof of the "harmful" effects portrayed in the erroneus article

The pharmacy department at Mississippi has compiled data on 59,369 samples of cannabis, 1,225 hashish samples, and 443 hash oil samples confiscated since 1975. "The highest concentration of (THC) found in a cannabis (marijuana) sample is 33.12 percent from Oregon State Police," the report reads.

This is a fairly true statement. Since the 70,s much has changed in the growing and harvesting of high grade marijuana .Not unlike any other agricultural Products such as wheat soy and corn.Of course the process has Gotten better and the product has gotten better. what this means to the cannabis user is a more concentrated product that will last longer . and be used less ,as not as much material will need to be smoked to catch a buzz.

many of todays High grade Medicinal marijuana is in the 30 percent or higher range the reason for this is specifically so the paitient does not have to continually smoke all the time....the THC content of hashish Now can be had at percentages as high as 90% pure thc

it is no more harmful because of its concntration it just means less will be used

According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Adminstration, marijuana was involved in 242,200 visits to hospital emergency rooms in 2005. This means that the patient mentioned using marijuana and does not mean the drug directly caused the accident or condition being treated, SAMHSA says.

I am very very skeptical of this claim and am presently looking into this accusation as i suspect the effects are largely exaggerated and experienced mostly with Beginning teenaged experimenters which i understand but dont necessarily condone I will comment on it further as soon as i can see what type of reports these are





Basically what we have here, is a report telling you that the methods of growing, and breeding, of Marijuana has improved over the last 30 years.Which is producing a product, with a higher THC content................Which is understandably true, as i explained....Then they begin to drift ........Just because the active ingredient is present in higher quantities.......Does not make the substance any more harmful,or dangerous....
It is still... the SAME substance-----------there is just MORE of it present.... this is a play on words and a phallacy


Technology has blessed the marijuana Grower just as it has pretty much every other area of our lives. improved products,improved genetics,improved techniques, just as in any other area of "farming" in the last 30 years many advances have been made

they have proven nothing beyond that

[vyo476]

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_chemistry.shtml

I'm sorry to disappoint you but THC becomes lethal in higher doses. It takes a while before becoming truly lethal; at 5% you'd have to smoke about a kilo of it and at 15% you'd have to smoke about a pound before the chances of it killing you would increase. The "average" marijuana out there today, according to the report I gave you, contains 8% THC, meaning that the LD50 is somewhere between a kilogram and a pound (yes, I'm mixing measurement systems). That's a ton of marijuana but people closer to my age love extreme excess.

As for the article, it was a Yahoo news article, not a health report. Here's the report, for you perusal.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/default.html

[Rokerijdude11]

BULLSH^T

there has NEVER EVER EVER been ONE SINGLE DOCUMENTED CASE of LETHALITY in a marijuana user

It is Physically IMPOSSIBLE to Overdose On THC

I dont need Erowid to tell me what the THC make up of the plant is im a 30+ year smoker I have bred and grown marijuana for many years i grew medicinal Mj for paitients who needed it I am very well aware of THC and its make up

Im sorry but all you have done is made an assesment and tell us what "COULD happen POSSIBLY if someone sat down and smoked 2 pounds of weed in a sitting? do you have any idea how physically impossible that would be? not to mention the fact that NEVER has anyone overdosed from marijuana and NEVER has anyone Died from too much thc



I have smoked Ice water hasj that is 90% pure thc and LOTS of it .....ive smoked as many as 3 grams at once in this concentrated form it was the equivelent of smoking 2 kilos worth of 8-12 per cent weed

which btw is COMMON DIRT WEED anyone who really is into the whole scene is REGULARLY smoking weed in the 20-37 percent range........



Secondly you are handing to me a report put out by the federal Government? what good is that? they have consistently LIED about marijuana and hemp since they prohibited it back in 37....the Government entered into a conspiracy to LIE to the American people and the world about Marijuana and its effects............


based on this information.which BTW is 100% documented and verifiable ...if you think you can somehow disprove that i direct you to the 100,000,00 challenge also..some of you really dont KNOW what the truth is this is evident in your postings....go read the book and learn what your dealing with the NIDA report is a skewed Govt report which ill address in the next post i make


In short the Government has lied and is STILL lying about marijuana ..I am Not likely to take anything they have provided as evidence of anything

I challenge you to produce for us a SINGLE case in which marijuana smoked by an individual resulted in a lethal dose ...in which the subject died...........



and like i said your post has no conclusive evidence and im living proof you theory dosent hold water

we will discuss Nidas lies in the next post

[9sublime]

A post on another forum so I can't take credit for it. I've clean it up a bit though.

There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality to this very day after 10,000 or so years of use.

the LD50 It's extremely high... Impossibly high... At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD50 is around 1:20,000 to 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.

[Rokerijdude11]

Ha ha ha ha ha

same chick same bunch of "POSSIBILITIES" absolutly NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE HERE EITHER!!!!!!
again i would like the readers to carefully note the "verbage" used in this so-called conclusive report By the federal Government......particularly the words italicized and bolded in red


the bolded black words in parenthesis are words that would have been used had they had proof read the article using each set of words seperatly to see what i mean


The use of marijuana can produce
( PRODUCES)adverse physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral changes, and - contrary to popular belief - it can be addictive.( IS) Marijuana smoke, like cigarette smoke, can(harms) harm the lungs.4,5,6 The use of marijuana can(IMPAIRS) impair short-term memory,7,8 verbal skills,9 and judgment10 and distort perception.11,12 It also may(WEAKENS) weaken the immune system13,14,15,16 and possibly(Increases) increase a user's likelihood of developing cancer.14,17 Finally, the increasing use of marijuana by very young teens may have(Is Having) a profoundly negative effect upon their development.9, 18, 19,20



whayt you will Notice here in this supposedly substantaited "Proof" is no less than 4 times they use the word "CAN" if they had ANY PROOF the word used would be "DOES they dont use that word because they have NO PROOF THA THESE THINGS DO HAPPEN they only suggest they possibly CAN happen...........................
then as to throw you off track a lil bit they change the verbage, and use the word "MAY" twice, and Possibly once.............If they had the PROOF they claimed..... the words may, and possibly, would also have been replaced with Will,Does,
they also admit right here in theyre own Federally approved and funded website that it may POSSIBLY increase the chance of cancer..............Possibly thats conclusive Government Proof? Hardly


in Bold in parenthesis I have written in words that would CETAINLY have been contained in this report had they ANY proof at all do you really think the government does not take the time to carefully craft its words?...........

[palerider]

Ha ha ha ha ha

same chick same bunch of "POSSIBILITIES" absolutly NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE HERE EITHER!!!!!!
again i would like the readers to carefully note the "verbage" used in this so-called conclusive report By the federal Government......particularly the words italicized and bolded in red


Your defense of pot smoking and evident belief in a conspiracy to keep it illegal seems to be bordering on paranoia. Speaking of paranoia:


http://www.rsna.org/rsna/media/pr2005/Marijauna.cfm
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10116853
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4305783.stm

[9sublime]

Palerider, you are a real moron. His defense of pot smoking is called an opinion, and I don't think he's ever ranted about a huge, worldwide conspiracy from every official in the world, but more about the fact that the government is too opinionated to ever change cannabis and so it doesn't give its findings out straight to the people, but twisted them.

Obviously you have memory loss on the word opinions defenition, and that this forum is here for opinions, and memory loss on the tone and point of most of Rokers point. I always hear memory loss is quite a common side effect from cannabis too. Maybe you shouldn't have puffed away in the 60's.

[palerider]

Palerider, you are a real moron. His defense of pot smoking is called an opinion, and I don't think he's ever ranted about a huge, worldwide conspiracy from every official in the world, but more about the fact that the government is too opinionated to ever change cannabis and so it doesn't give its findings out straight to the people, but twisted them.


Maybe you should read back through this thread. He most certainly has stated that "forces" are working to keep pot illegal so that other "forces" may gain profit. That is a conspiracy; and who ever mentioned a worldwide conspiracy involving every official in the world. Few conspiracy theorists claim that their conspiracy involves every official in the world.

[Rokerijdude11]

Your defense of pot smoking and evident belief in a conspiracy to keep it illegal seems to be bordering on paranoia. Speaking of paranoia:


http://www.rsna.org/rsna/media/pr2005/Marijauna.cfm
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10116853
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4305783.stm

your inability to read and assimilate has become quite apparent ..its no conspiracy and 5th grade student know more about this than you do palerider....... read the book pal then come back you havent got a leg to stand on in this iossue PERIOD......what happened happened its documented and widely written about again smart ass if you know so much go collect the cash....................


oh thats right YOU REALLY DONT KNOW anything you just spout Govt Rhetorics like the sky is falling.....no paranoia PURE FACTS where are YOURS ill address you inconclusive links here also are ANY OF YOU KNOWLEDGABLE on this ? seems that me and 9sublime are the only ones here in posession of the actual truths on this matter?

[Rokerijdude11]

Maybe you should read back through this thread. He most certainly has stated that "forces" are working to keep pot illegal so that other "forces" may gain profit. That is a conspiracy; and who ever mentioned a worldwide conspiracy involving every official in the world. Few conspiracy theorists claim that their conspiracy involves every official in the world.
no sir thats NOT what ive said you dont EVER frigging read things only parts of them then you go on with your patented Bullshat of trying to say people say or support things that they never said they did.here you are once again..same story Now ill go really slow for you ok ?


Back in 1937 there was a group of financiers and corporate giants they IN FACT conspired to make Marijuana and MOSTLY HEMP ILLEGAL the reason? quite simple to eliminate the entire HEMP INDUSTRY

In order to do this they USED its cousin marijuana to Villanize BOTH PLANTS by staging events that didnt happen (sounds like your kinda people) and Writing article that werent true but publishing them anyhow

Anslinger,Hearst,Dupont, these are are a few of the names involved.its all factual thats how Hemp and Marijuana became to be illegal.....PERIOD there is no room for debate NO ROOM FOR PALERIDERS THEORY this is DOCUMENTED FACT...............prove ANY OF IT WRONG and Collect 100,000,00 which you cant do because you simply dont know what the Fock your talking about !!!!

its factual and documented period when are you going to read the book?

your really showing anyone who knows the truth what we are up againts mindless frigging idiots with a complete inability to look at teh documented evidence ......yet somehow feel they are able to speak on the subject!!!!!!
what a joke you really are dudue then when it becomes obvious Im Kicking your asz in the thread you start talking about this in yet ANOTHER thread Dude you suck.you dont KNOW what your talking about PERIOD youve LOST hands down

why are you so bent on embarrassing yourself? you look like a 60 yr old man who dosent know what the fock hes talking abaout?

oh thats right.........you are

[Rokerijdude11]

Palerider, you are a real moron. His defense of pot smoking is called an opinion, and I don't think he's ever ranted about a huge, worldwide conspiracy from every official in the world, but more about the fact that the government is too opinionated to ever change cannabis and so it doesn't give its findings out straight to the people, but twisted them.

Obviously you have memory loss on the word opinions defenition, and that this forum is here for opinions, and memory loss on the tone and point of most of Rokers point. I always hear memory loss is quite a common side effect from cannabis too. Maybe you shouldn't have puffed away in the 60's.

Memory Loss is a "TEMPORARY" side effect of smoking pot
IF you are aregular user that smokes say 6 times a day which is NOT the NORM then POSSIBLY the issue of memery loss can be looked at .........BUT WHEN that smoker puts down the pipe and allows his mind to clear so to does the Memory loss ...............it is NOT a permanent Effect of pot smoking.if it was id never have been able to do my Job as a telecommunications expert.............far too much memory involved to just scrape by without remembering.....but hey you know palerider......he thinks he knows it all

[vyo476]

The general theme here appears to be "I'm right and you all suck!" which is more befitting of an elementary school fight than a forum where adults go to discuss things.

Rokerijdude, you need to sit yourself down and ask yourself whether or not you're even willing to accept the possibility that you are wrong on this. You seem to be so convinced that you aren't that every time anyone posts anything as evidence to the contrary you go off like Vesuvius. It seems that your attempts to debunk other peoples' arguments come more from an emotional desire to do so than a logical one. You aren't convincing anyone of anything.

Do you think maybe we can try this again? Without any accusations and name-calling this time?

[Rokerijdude11]

The general theme here appears to be "I'm right and you all suck!" which is more befitting of an elementary school fight than a forum where adults go to discuss things.

Rokerijdude, you need to sit yourself down and ask yourself whether or not you're even willing to accept the possibility that you are wrong on this. You seem to be so convinced that you aren't that every time anyone posts anything as evidence to the contrary you go off like Vesuvius. It seems that your attempts to debunk other peoples' arguments come more from an emotional desire to do so than a logical one. You aren't convincing anyone of anything.

Do you think maybe we can try this again? Without any accusations and name-calling this time?

Im sorry But on the Prohibition of marijuana there is absolutly NO WAY i am WRONG on it period

it is DOCUMENTED FACT that is supported BY EXTENSIVE research concerning it PERIOD there is NO debate IT is what it is period i didnt say he sucked? your just like him i see.......I said he is UN-EDUCATED in the REALITIES of Hemp and Marijuana Prohibition..which he IS again just some FACTS period calling him Un-educated is not calling him a name? it is calling attention to his Education when it comes to this subject...and he is FLATLY wrong
I have debated my position without name calling

I cant help that some of you are simply Not Educated enough to respond in this thread ..you continue to bring proof that is NOT proof its simply conjecture.....MAY .....COULD......SOME......POSSIBLY..... these are not words that wopuld support PROOF of anything......NONE of you anti MJ people so far actually even Knows the TRUTHS behind Prohibition??????


How then can you EVEN begin to speak with any type of Knowledge on the subject? GO READ THE BOOK and then if youd like to debate we can attempt to do so ..so far not one of you has had a valid debateable point

in short on the subject of how hemp and Marijauana became illegal and why they continue to conspire against it...........NO SIR I AM NOT WRONG period

its all in the Book.read it and collect the money if you think you know better?


why bother to debate me? im not offereing 100 grand to prove me wrong? your wasting valuable time and effort on me.........that is Unless of course you arent Educated enough to prove Jack wrong..................or maybe the facts are ..gasp FACTS and your UNABLE to prove them wrong eh

[9sublime]

I think that although Roker is stubborn and slightly provocative in this issue, Palerider just talks absoloute arse that he has just looked up on some government website in the last five minutes.

Palerider just attacks the way people debate this issue, and doesn't address the fact that Roker is actually defeating him in it at every turn of this discussion.

[Fonz]

I think that although Roker is stubborn and slightly provocative in this issue, Palerider just talks absoloute arse that he has just looked up on some government website in the last five minutes.

Palerider just attacks the way people debate this issue, and doesn't address the fact that Roker is actually defeating him in it at every turn of this discussion.

Well Said and I concur.

[Rokerijdude11]

marijuana Prohibition

http://jackherer.com/chapter04.html

Go learn WHY and HOW it came to be or continue to lose your shirt in *cough* *Cough* debate


=================================

In the mid-1930s, when the new mechanical hemp fiber stripping machines and machines to conserve hemp's high-cellulose pulp finally became state-of-the-art, available and affordable, the enormous timber acreage and businesses of the Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division, Kimberly Clark (USA), St. Regis - and virtually all other timber, paper and large newspaper holding companies - stood to lose billions of dollars and perhaps go bankrupt.

Coincidentally, in 1937, DuPont had just patented processes for making plastics from oil and coal, as well as a new sulfate/sulfite process for making paper from wood pulp. According to DuPont's own corporate records and historians,* these processes accounted for over 80% of all the company's railroad carloadings over the next 60 years into the 1990s.

*Author's research and communications with DuPont, 1985-1996.

If hemp had not been made illegal, 80% of DuPont's business would never have materialized and the great majority of the pollution which has poisoned our Northwestern and Southeastern rivers would not have occurred.

In an open marketplace, hemp would have saved the majority of America's vital family farms and would probably have boosted their numbers, despite the Great Depression of the 1930s.

But competing against environmentally-sane hemp paper and natural plastic technology would have jeopardized the lucrative financial schemes of Hearst, DuPont and DuPont's chief financial backer, Andrew Mellon of the Mellon Bank of Pittsburgh.


Concern about the effects of hemp smoke had already led to two major governmental studies. The British governor of India released the Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission 1893-1894 on heavy bhang smokers in the subcontinent.

And in 1930, the U.S. government sponsored the Siler Commission study on the effects of off-duty smoking of marijuana by American servicemen in Panama. Both reports concluded that marijuana was not a problem and recommended that no criminal penalties apply to its use.

In early 1937, Assistant U.S. Surgeon General Walter Treadway told the Cannabis Advisory Subcommittee of the League of Nations that, "It may be taken for a relatively long time without social or emotional breakdown. Marihuana is habit-forming. . . in the same sense as. . . sugar or coffee."

But other forces were at work. The war fury that led to the Spanish American War in 1898 was ignited by William Randolph Hearst, through his nationwide chain of newspapers, and marked the beginning of "yellow journalism"* as a force in American politics.

* Webster's Dictionary defines "yellow journalism" as the use of cheaply sensational or unscrupulous methods in newspapers and other media to attract or influence the readers.

In the 1920s and '30s, Hearst's newspapers deliberately manufactured a new threat to America and a new yellow journalism campaign to have hemp outlawed. For example, a story of a car accident in which a "marijuana cigarette" was found would dominate the headlines for weeks, while alcohol related car accidents (which outnumbered marijuana connected accidents by more than 10,000 to 1) made only the back pages.

This same theme of marijuana leading to car accidents was burned into the minds of Americans over and over again the in late 1930s by showing marijuana related car accident headlines in movies such as "Reefer Madness" and "Marijuana - Assassin of Youth."



In the secret Treasury Department meetings conducted between 1935 and 1937, prohibitive tax laws were drafted and strategies plotted. "Marijuana" was not banned outright; the law called for an "occupational excise tax upon dealers, and a transfer tax upon dealings in marijuana."

Importers, manufacturers, sellers and distributors were required to register with the Secretary of the Treasury and pay the occupational tax. Transfers were taxed at $1 an ounce; $100 an ounce if the dealer was unregistered. The new tax doubled the price of the legal "raw drug" cannabis which at the time sold for one dollar an ounce.2 The year was 1937. New York State had exactly one narcotics officer.*

* New York currently has a network of thousands of narcotics officers, agents, spies and paid informants - and 20 times the penal capacity it had in 1937, although the state's population has only doubled since then.

After the Supreme Court decision of March 29, 1937, upholding the prohibition of machine guns through taxation, Herman Oliphant made his move. On April 14, 1937 he introduced the bill directly to the House Ways and Means Committee instead of to other appropriate committees such as food and drug, agriculture, textiles, commerce, etc.

His reason may have been that "Ways and Means" is the only committee that can send its bills directly to the House floor without being subject to debate by other committees. Ways and Means Chairman Robert L. Doughton,* a key DuPont ally, quickly rubber-stamped the secret Treasury bill and sent it sailing through Congress to the President.

* Colby Jerry, The DuPont Dynasties, Lyle Stewart, 1984.



As the AMA's Dr. Woodward had asserted, the government's testimony before Congress in 1937 had in fact consisted almost entirely of Hearst's and other sensational and racist newspaper articles read aloud by Harry J. Anslinger,* director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN). (This agency has since evolved into the Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA]).

*Harry J. Anslinger was director of the new Federal Bureau of Narcotics from its inception in 1931 for the next 31 years, and was only forced into retirement in 1962 by President John F. Kennedy after Anslinger tried to censor the publications and publishers of Professor Alfred Lindsmith (The Addict and the Law, Washington Post, 1961) and to blackmail and harass his employer, Indiana University. Anslinger had come under attack for racist remarks as early as 1934 by a U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, Joseph Guffey, for such things as referring to "ginger-colored ******s" in letters circulated to his department heads on FBN stationery.

Prior to 1931, Anslinger was Assistant U.S. Commissioner for Prohibition. Anslinger, remember, was hand-picked to head the new Federal Bureau of Narcotics by his uncle-in-law, Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury under President Herbert Hoover. The same Andrew Mellon was also the owner and largest stockholder of the sixth largest bank (in 1937) in the United States, the Mellon Bank in Pittsburgh, one of only two bankers for DuPont* from 1928 to the present.

* DuPont has borrowed money from banks only twice in its entire 190-year history, once to buy control of General Motors in the 1920s. Its banking business is the prestigious plum of the financial world.

In 1937, Anslinger testified before Congress saying, "Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

This, along with Anslinger's outrageous racist statements and beliefs, was made to the southern dominated congressional committee and is now an embarrassment to read in its entirety.

For instance, Anslinger kept a "Gore File," culled almost entirely from Hearst and other sensational tabloids - e.g., stories of axe murders, where one of the participants reportedly smoked a joint four days before committing the crime.

Anslinger pushed on Congress as a factual statement that about 50% of all violent crimes committed in the U.S. were committed by Spaniards, Mexican-Americans, Latin Americans, Filipinos, African-Americans and Greeks, and these crimes could be traced directly to marijuana.

(From Anslinger's own records given to Pennsylvania State University, ref.; Li Cata Murders, etc.)

Not one of Anslinger's marijuana "Gore Files" of the 1930s is believed to be true by scholars who have painstakingly checked the facts.4


The late 1920s and 1930s saw continuing consolidation of power into the hands of a few large steel, oil and chemical (munitions) companies. The U.S. federal government placed much of the textile production for the domestic economy in the hands of its chief munitions maker, DuPont.

The processing of nitrating cellulose into explosives is very similar to the process for nitrating cellulose into synthetic fibers and plastics. Rayon, the first synthetic fiber, is simply stabilized guncotton, or nitrated cloth, the basic explosive of the 19th Century.

"Synthetic plastics find application in fabricating a wide variety of articles, many of which in the past were made from natural products,"* beamed Lammot DuPont (Popular Mechanics, June 1939, pg. 805).

"Consider our natural resources," the president of DuPont continued, "The chemist has aided in conserving natural resources by developing synthetic products to supplement or wholly replace natural products."

DuPont's scientists were the world's leading researchers into the processes of nitrating cellulose and were in fact the largest processor of cellulose in the nation in this era.

The February 1938 Popular Mechanics article stated "Thousands of tons of hemp hurds are used every year by one large powder company for the manufacture of dynamite and TNT." History shows that DuPont had largely cornered the market in explosives by buying up and consolidating the smaller blasting companies in the late 1800s. By 1902 it controlled about two-thirds of industry output.

[Rokerijdude11]

The late 1920s and 1930s saw continuing consolidation of power into the hands of a few large steel, oil and chemical (munitions) companies. The U.S. federal government placed much of the textile production for the domestic economy in the hands of its chief munitions maker, DuPont.

The processing of nitrating cellulose into explosives is very similar to the process for nitrating cellulose into synthetic fibers and plastics. Rayon, the first synthetic fiber, is simply stabilized guncotton, or nitrated cloth, the basic explosive of the 19th Century.

"Synthetic plastics find application in fabricating a wide variety of articles, many of which in the past were made from natural products,"* beamed Lammot DuPont (Popular Mechanics, June 1939, pg. 805).

"Consider our natural resources," the president of DuPont continued, "The chemist has aided in conserving natural resources by developing synthetic products to supplement or wholly replace natural products."

DuPont's scientists were the world's leading researchers into the processes of nitrating cellulose and were in fact the largest processor of cellulose in the nation in this era.

The February 1938 Popular Mechanics article stated "Thousands of tons of hemp hurds are used every year by one large powder company for the manufacture of dynamite and TNT." History shows that DuPont had largely cornered the market in explosives by buying up and consolidating the smaller blasting companies in the late 1800s. By 1902 it controlled about two-thirds of industry output.

They were the largest powder company, supplying 40% of the munitions for the allies in WWI. As cellulose and fiber researchers, DuPont's chemists knew hemp's true value better than anyone else. The value of hemp goes far beyond linen fibers; although recognized for linen, canvas, netting and cordage, these long fibers are only 20% of the hempstalk's weight. Eighty percent of the hemp is in the 77% cellulose hurd, and this was the most abundant, cleanest resource of cellulose (fiber) for paper, plastics and even rayon.

The empirical evidence in this book shows that the federal government - through the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act - allowed this munitions maker to supply synthetic fibers for the domestic economy without competition. The proof of a successful conspiracy among these corporate and governing interests is simply this: in 1997 DuPont was still the largest producer of man-made fibers, while no American citizen has legally harvested a single acre of textile grade hemp in over 60 years (except during the period of WWII).

An almost unlimited tonnage of natural fiber and cellulose would have become available to the American farmer in 1937, the year DuPont patented nylon and the polluting wood-pulp paper sulfide process. All of hemp's potential value was lost.

Simple plastics of the early 1900s were made of nitrated cellulose, directly related to DuPont's munitions-making process. Celluloid, acetate and rayon were the simple plastics of that era, and hemp was well known to cellulose researchers as the premier resource for this new industry to use. Worldwide, the raw material of simple plastics, rayon and paper could be best supplied by hemp hurds.

Nylon fibers were developed between 1926-1937 by the noted Harvard chemist Wallace Carothers, working from German patents. These polyamides are long fibers based on observed natural products. Carothers, supplied with an open-ended research grant from DuPont, made a comprehensive study of natural cellulose fibers. He duplicated natural fibers in his labs and polyamides - long fibers of a specific chemical process - were developed. (Curiously, Wallace Carothers committed suicide one week after the House Ways and Means Committee, in April of 1937, had the hearings on cannabis and created the bill that would eventually outlaw hemp.)

Coal tar and petroleum-based chemicals were employed, and different devices, spinnerets and processes were patented. This new type of textile, nylon, was to be controlled from the raw material stage, as coal, to the completed product: a patented chemical product. The chemical company centralized the production and profits of the new "miracle" fiber. The introduction of nylon, the introduction of high-volume machinery to separate hemp's long fiber from the cellulose hurd, and the outlawing of hemp as "marijuana" all occurred simultaneously.

The new man-made fibers (MMFs) can best be described as war material. The fiber-making process has become one based on big factories, smokestacks, coolants and hazardous chemicals, rather than one of stripping out the abundant, naturally available fibers.

Coming from a history of making explosives and munitions, the old "chemical dye plants" now produce hosiery, mock linens, mock canvas, latex paint and synthetic carpets. Their polluting factories make imitation leather, upholstery and wood surfaces, while an important part of the natural cycle stands outlawed.

The standard fiber of world history, America's traditional crop, hemp, could provide our textiles and paper and be the premier source for cellulose. The war industries - DuPont, Allied Chemical, Monsanto, etc., - are protected from competition by the marijuana laws. They make war on the natural cycle and the common farmer.

- Shan Clark

[palerider]

your inability to read and assimilate has become quite apparent ..its no conspiracy and 5th grade student know more about this than you do palerider....... read the book pal then come back you havent got a leg to stand on in this iossue PERIOD......what happened happened its documented and widely written about again smart ass if you know so much go collect the cash....................


"the book" is written by an uneducated doper. Of what possible value do you believe it is?

[palerider]

I think that although Roker is stubborn and slightly provocative in this issue, Palerider just talks absoloute arse that he has just looked up on some government website in the last five minutes.

Palerider just attacks the way people debate this issue, and doesn't address the fact that Roker is actually defeating him in it at every turn of this discussion.


I have provided plenty of credible science that strongly suggests that pot smoking can cause a host of health problems. He, on the other hand, incessantly refers to "the book" which was written by an uneducated doper. Pardon me, but I will accept legitimate research over the published rantings of a doper.

[9sublime]

I have provided plenty of credible science that strongly suggests that pot smoking can cause a host of health problems. He, on the other hand, incessantly refers to "the book" which was written by an uneducated doper. Pardon me, but I will accept legitimate research over the published rantings of a doper.


Like the Islam topic, this CANNOT go any further until you realise that you are turning down any evidence on pro-legalisation if it is written by someone who has smoked the stuff.

[Rokerijdude11]

I have provided plenty of credible science that strongly suggests that pot smoking can cause a host of health problems. He, on the other hand, incessantly refers to "the book" which was written by an uneducated doper. Pardon me, but I will accept legitimate research over the published rantings of a doper.

No you have NOT
what you have provided are websites that contain alot of assumptions and words like "Could" "May" "might" "possibly" in some cases..no proof nothing of defenitive nature at all

I have on the other hand Provided you with Documented proof of my position and all you have been able to do with it is call the author and myself names because your UN-able to Debate the issue ....why? because your limited education in this topic area does not allow you to debate the issue.I am sorry that your Agent Orange riddled brain keeps you from actually reading and debating the issue? maybe you should have that looked at?

wait wait.......I dont need to do this .i dont need to stoop to your level I RETRACT that statement I dont need it i have OWNED you since the opening post of this thread
all you have been able to do is insult and ridicule the halmarks of an un-educated debater

your really could learn something here but your too smug to do so you lose pal sorry

your un-able to effect any type of argument outside of name calling

come back when you have a clue or if youd like to continue to embarras yourself

[Rokerijdude11]

I use Jacks Book as its the easiest way to support my position it has all been convieniently located in one area and has all of the associated reference points to support it

I have no need to "rely" on it as you purport I have smoked daily for some 30 years..................I Live the life I know the life I know all of this information and have Intensively investigated it before beginning to use it to support my theories


you on the other hand REFUSE to even look at it .......why? one can only speculate it is because it will destroy your position and it scares the hell out of you that you are actually wrong about something


and thats what we have here you are simply Wrong about this .and refuse to even look at why that is...because it is far easier to call Jack and Myself Dopers than it is to actually learn the truth

what a small box you must live in

[vyo476]

To Roker: I apologize. I should mention that I largely agree with you on this issue. I said that the theme had become "I'm right and you suck," not that you'd actually said those particular words. You've presented a wealth of information and actually, regardless of any potentially harmful characteristics of marijuana I was always in favor of its legalization.

To palerider: I'd have to say that he's got you beaten on this one. All the other people to have chimed in seem to think so too. Unless you want to put that science of yours back on the table (yes, repeat yourself) than its time to concede the debate. If you don't, then please, lets see your evidence again.

[palerider]

Like the Islam topic, this CANNOT go any further until you realise that you are turning down any evidence on pro-legalisation if it is written by someone who has smoked the stuff.

Whether or not they have smoked pot or not is irrelavent. When it comes to possible health risks of substances, I choose to accept legitimate research performed by highly educated researchers over "the book" which was written by a man who, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't even have an associates degree from a junior college.

[palerider]

No you have NOT
what you have provided are websites that contain alot of assumptions and words like "Could" "May" "might" "possibly" in some cases..no proof nothing of defenitive nature at all

Which is exactly the same language used in research that established that cigarette smoking causes cancer. Since it does not cause cancer in everyone who smokes, it can't be said that cigarrette smoking will cause cancer. Do you also want to argue that cigarettes don't cause cancer?

I have on the other hand Provided you with Documented proof of my position and all you have been able to do with it is call the author and myself names because your UN-able to Debate the issue ....why? because your limited education in this topic area does not allow you to debate the issue.I am sorry that your Agent Orange riddled brain keeps you from actually reading and debating the issue? maybe you should have that looked at?

Documented by who? A man who doesn't even have an associates degree. I am supposed to accept his word that a chemical substance can not cause me harm when teams of legitimate researchers say that it can?

[PLC1]

I think we have some real evidence about the advisability of pot smoking embedded in the above posts.

Should marijuana be legalized? Yes, no doubt about it. Prohibition hasn't worked, and most likely never will.

Is pot smoking a good idea? Well, just try to wade through the incoherent rantings of Rokerijdude11, and ask yourself whether the effects are positive or negative.

[southern_rocker04]

I won't lie, I did inhale...many many many times. The effects of marijuana are very much like alcohol. I've never heard of Marijuana causing the stomach problems that are associated with alcohol. Drinking alcohol straight sometimes hurts my stomach, even when I drink a little. Marijuana usually only makes me thirsty and hungry.

I think marijuana should be legalized. Arresting people for marijuana is a waste of Law Enforcement resources. The police should be out arresting the real criminals: Murders, Rapists, Child Molesters, "Hard Drug" Users and Dealers, Thieves, etc.

What drugs are probably the most dangerous and widely available?

Prescription Drugs.

[zerorelations]

I think marijuana should be legalized. Arresting people for marijuana is a waste of Law Enforcement resources. The police should be out arresting the real criminals: Murders, Rapists, Child Molesters, "Hard Drug" Users and Dealers, Thieves, etc.

That's what I'm talking about.

The police force shouldn't have to waste time catching people who smoke weed in their homes or at their friends house. They should go out there and save someone instead.

[evelyna]

I do not believe harmful things should be legalized. I know people who smoke pot and can do it in moderation. I also know people who cannot do anything in moderation.
People who want to enjoy themselves cannot because of the majority of abusers.
Cigarettes and alcohol should not be legal. Both are harmful and ruin people's health.
It is not only the user who is harmed. It is his family when he prefers to get high instead of participate.
It is the innocent motorist driving home from work who is demolished by an intoxicated drinker.
For the majority of society it is better not to legalize any of these.
Do we want Bush controlling how much we smoke and drink they way he controls the budget?
Government control is never better.

[r0beph]

I don't think it should be "legalized" per se. I do however maintain that it should DEFINITELY be decriminalized. The issue is not a black and white issue. Marijuana does have serious health risks, just like all vices, cigarettes, alcohol, none are without risk. I could go into the addictive properties and the marijuana withdraw effects (which are rather long 3mo - year for depression etc) I mean not everyone experiences problem from use, but then you can also say not everyone gets lung cancer, COPD, or even a cough from cigarettes, not everyone who drinks alcohol will end up with liver cirrhosis, an addiction, or under a bridge. I just think the big deal is less the physical dangers of the drug but rather the mental health risks associated with it. I think with it's decriminalization there still needs to be heavily funded (perhaps divert all the law enf. monies to this) mental health services to support the addictions that exist just as they have for alcohol. I'm sure I'll get some flames for this, but that's not the intention. I don't think it's right by any means that a single person even so much as pays a fine for a plant. Especially when the situation would be so much better served by mental health support not so called justice.

I do not believe harmful things should be legalized. I know people who smoke pot and can do it in moderation. I also know people who cannot do anything in moderation.
People who want to enjoy themselves cannot because of the majority of abusers.
Cigarettes and alcohol should not be legal. Both are harmful and ruin people's health.
It is not only the user who is harmed. It is his family when he prefers to get high instead of participate.
It is the innocent motorist driving home from work who is demolished by an intoxicated drinker.
For the majority of society it is better not to legalize any of these.
Do we want Bush controlling how much we smoke and drink they way he controls the budget?
Government control is never better.



Again, nothing is black and white. Rather than arrest and criminalization (and possible institutionalization for those involved with higher levels of posession etc.), all this war on drugs money should be diverted into mental health services, addiction itself is a disease, the poison involved with the addiction is secondary to the actual addiction. Addiction is genetic with environmental secondary roots. There are actual differences in the physiology of those with addictions (not just chemical addictions, but even gambling/sexual addictions show different parts of the brain that differ from those without addictions) So none of these should be treated criminally when they're suffering from a disease. Obviously the line between criminal activity and involvement with addictive substances is thin. This has to be kept in perspective, how to treat the addiction and punish for criminal choices made while under the influence. The fact an addiction is a disease does not lessen the fact that criminal actions are criminal.

[vyo476]

I don't think it should be "legalized" per se. I do however maintain that it should DEFINITELY be decriminalized. The issue is not a black and white issue. Marijuana does have serious health risks, just like all vices, cigarettes, alcohol, none are without risk. I could go into the addictive properties and the marijuana withdraw effects (which are rather long 3mo - year for depression etc) I mean not everyone experiences problem from use, but then you can also say not everyone gets lung cancer, COPD, or even a cough from cigarettes, not everyone who drinks alcohol will end up with liver cirrhosis, an addiction, or under a bridge. I just think the big deal is less the physical dangers of the drug but rather the mental health risks associated with it. I think with it's decriminalization there still needs to be heavily funded (perhaps divert all the law enf. monies to this) mental health services to support the addictions that exist just as they have for alcohol. I'm sure I'll get some flames for this, but that's not the intention. I don't think it's right by any means that a single person even so much as pays a fine for a plant. Especially when the situation would be so much better served by mental health support not so called justice.





Again, nothing is black and white. Rather than arrest and criminalization (and possible institutionalization for those involved with higher levels of posession etc.), all this war on drugs money should be diverted into mental health services, addiction itself is a disease, the poison involved with the addiction is secondary to the actual addiction. Addiction is genetic with environmental secondary roots. There are actual differences in the physiology of those with addictions (not just chemical addictions, but even gambling/sexual addictions show different parts of the brain that differ from those without addictions) So none of these should be treated criminally when they're suffering from a disease. Obviously the line between criminal activity and involvement with addictive substances is thin. This has to be kept in perspective, how to treat the addiction and punish for criminal choices made while under the influence. The fact an addiction is a disease does not lessen the fact that criminal actions are criminal.

Bravo. Well-stated.

[r0beph]

It's just a pretty staple way of looking at things, everyone loves the bipartisan views, go left or right, right or wrong, or whatever. Problem is people lose objectivity, become mob mentalities and forget about the reality of the issue at hand. Nothing is black and white, not even old TV (that's more of a grayscale, right?) everyone should remember that before approaching issues.

[vyo476]

It's just a pretty staple way of looking at things, everyone loves the bipartisan views, go left or right, right or wrong, or whatever. Problem is people lose objectivity, become mob mentalities and forget about the reality of the issue at hand. Nothing is black and white, not even old TV (that's more of a grayscale, right?) everyone should remember that before approaching issues.

I think I'm gonna like you.

[Rokerijdude11]

I think we have some real evidence about the advisability of pot smoking embedded in the above posts.

Should marijuana be legalized? Yes, no doubt about it. Prohibition hasn't worked, and most likely never will.

Is pot smoking a good idea? Well, just try to wade through the incoherent rantings of Rokerijdude11, and ask yourself whether the effects are positive or negative.

Incoherent Ramblings................hardly what is more likely is the conversation was 3 levels above yor intellect level so the best you were able to muster was a weak insult upon my information which is non-debatable

Everything I have posted here is Conclusive,and well documented. on top of that i have provided you with insight from a 30+ year user.......and the best you have to bring to the table is a shot like Incoherent ramblings?......


you have got to be kidding us here right? Im sorry that so many of you are Not Familiar with the Realities of Hemp and Marijauna Prohibition.....perhaps had you been educated in this area youd be qualified to debate it Ill just add you to the list of Un-Educated Know nothings when it comes to Hemp and marijauna Prohibition and legalization



thats ok though dont feel bad your in the majority. come on back when you think you might have something of value to debate or add

Ill be looking forward to it

have a nice day

[PLC1]

Incoherent Ramblings................hardly what is more likely is the conversation was 3 levels above yor intellect level so the best you were able to muster was a weak insult upon my information which is non-debatable

Aha! Another great example of incoherent ramblings. Did you really mean to say that my "weak insult" was non debatable? I agree. Thank you for the confirmation.

Everything I have posted here is Conclusive,and well documented. on top of that i have provided you with insight from a 30+ year user.......and the best you have to bring to the table is a shot like Incoherent ramblings?......

Yes, you have given all of us a great example of the results of 30+ years of smoking pot. If that doesn't scare the kids away from toking up, nothing will.

you have got to be kidding us here right? Im sorry that so many of you are Not Familiar with the Realities of Hemp and Marijauna Prohibition.....perhaps had you been educated in this area youd be qualified to debate it Ill just add you to the list of Un-Educated Know nothings when it comes to Hemp and marijauna Prohibition and legalization

I, for one, am quite familiar with the results of hemp and marijuana prohibition, and I've said that I'm against the continuation of such prohibition. What you've done for us once again is to confirm that long term pot use can scramble brain cells. For one thing, you are arguing against a point I never made, and don't seem to realize it. For another, what's up with the random capitals and lack of punctuation? Have you forgotten the conventions of the English language?

thats ok though dont feel bad your in the majority. come on back when you think you might have something of value to debate or add

Ill be looking forward to it

have a nice day

No, I don't feel bad that I'm in the majority. Why would I?

Or, have you once again posted a point you didn't intend to make?

Keep it up. You're confirming my point with every post.:)

[palerider]

Incoherent Ramblings................hardly what is more likely is the conversation was 3 levels above yor intellect level so the best you were able to muster was a weak insult upon my information which is non-debatable


No. Incoherent ramblings more accurately describes your rants. That and denying and distancing yourself from every point you try to make.

[9sublime]

I think the ultimate thing about marajuana prohibition in terms of who is right or wrong is that the prohibition isn't working successfully, and never really has since it came in.

So what do you propose, because a radical step is needed. Cut peoples hands off for smoking the stuff, or relax the laws and let the police deal with the high crime rates.

[Rokerijdude11]

No. Incoherent ramblings more accurately describes your rants. That and denying and distancing yourself from every point you try to make.

I havent distanced myself from ANYTHING in this post ..I dont have to I own You. your simply not educated in this area of expertise .its ok I understand completly.

Im sure the treaders do too you do realize that everyone who has participated in this post has told you that you have been soundly beaten in debate

Rants.hardly .........................Conclusive documented Proof

absolutly

have a nice day

[Rokerijdude11]

Aha! Another great example of incoherent ramblings. Did you really mean to say that my "weak insult" was non debatable? I agree. Thank you for the confirmation.

NO ..............sorry ace My information is Impeccable and Non-debatable because i simply am correct ......period

Yes, you have given all of us a great example of the results of 30+ years of smoking pot. If that doesn't scare the kids away from toking up, nothing will.


Generally speaking its at this point here, when I know ,That I have the total Upper hand, in this conversation.....as all you have is insults


I, for one, am quite familiar with the results of hemp and marijuana prohibition, and I've said that I'm against the continuation of such prohibition. What you've done for us once again is to confirm that long term pot use can scramble brain cells. For one thing, you are arguing against a point I never made, and don't seem to realize it. For another, what's up with the random capitals and lack of punctuation? Have you forgotten the conventions of the English language?
well sir,
IF you are SO KNOWLEDGABLE in this area of expertise.......why is it that all you seem to be able to do is Insult me,and Chastise me on my grammar? Probably because You arent as versed as you claim to be .For if you were we would be debating the issue....instead you have copied Paleriders tack, and have chosen to debate my grammar and Hurl insults about like a tennis ball.

the reason? because your incapable of actually debating the issue. Why? I can only assume its your lack of education in this area? Like was said above I know i have the upper hand......why? because you all have NOTHING to bring to the table


No, I don't feel bad that I'm in the majority. Why would I?

Or, have you once again posted a point you didn't intend to make?

once again you have comprehension difficulties...must still be in skool huh?


Keep it up. You're confirming my point with every post.:)
[b][color=green] again showing the readers who has the upper hand!! when your ready to take me on with that supposed Knowledge of the subject..........ill be here waiting....

have a nice day

Do you have anything of value to add to this conversation? Or is this going to go the way that Pale originally tried to bring it? Thats the best you have to offer is Grammatical errors? Ok then Its been Nice reading your attempts at putting me in my place when you have a point or want to discuss aspects of this you just come on back now here?

hahahahah punctuation police thats the best youve got!!!!!

funee

have a nice day

[PLC1]

Do you have anything of value to add to this conversation? Or is this going to go the way that Pale originally tried to bring it? Thats the best you have to offer is Grammatical errors? Ok then Its been Nice reading your attempts at putting me in my place when you have a point or want to discuss aspects of this you just come on back now here?

hahahahah punctuation police thats the best youve got!!!!!

funee

have a nice day

Thanks for continuing to make my point.

MJ smoking is a bad idea, especially over the long haul.
Prohibition hasn't worked, and probably won't in the future, just as alcohol prohibition didn't work.

Therefore, the best solution is to legalize it and tax it to pay for the societal problems it causes.

Simple, practical, workable, but it will never happen anyway.

[not2needy]

My opinion of MJ is, it has more good qualities than bad. It should be legalized, it surely doesn't harm the body any worse than alcohol.

[not2needy]

marijuana is a gateway drug.

usage of marijuana will lead to usage of harder drugs.

however, i have to agree with you on the alcohol part. i think there should be more restrictions on alcohol

If MJ were a gateway drug, then i would have been a crack head many years ago! If there is anything that takes away the inhabitions and makes you think doing anything is ok, it's alcohol. There's a gateway drug for you!

[PLC1]

If MJ were a gateway drug, then i would have been a crack head many years ago! If there is anything that takes away the inhabitions and makes you think doing anything is ok, it's alcohol. There's a gateway drug for you!

Tobacco is another one that could be considered a gateway drug, as it is the first one many people get addicted to.

Another question about the gateway drug concept is this:

Is there really a link between starting any drug, and becoming addicted to one of the really devastating ones, or are there just some people who have addictive personalities, and so are more likely to become addicted to whatever is available to them?

[9sublime]

If alcohol was illegal, it would be regareded as a gateway drug too. But because it is legal it isn't.

[not2needy]

Tobacco is another one that could be considered a gateway drug, as it is the first one many people get addicted to.

Another question about the gateway drug concept is this:

Is there really a link between starting any drug, and becoming addicted to one of the really devastating ones, or are there just some people who have addictive personalities, and so are more likely to become addicted to whatever is available to them?

I think it has to do with predisposition to addiction. Some people are addicted to food, others sex. What was the gateway to those? I quit smoking pot 20 years ago, but before that i was a heavy pot smoker. It never made me think about doing any other drug, however alcohol has made me do things i would never tell anyone. All pot did was make me raid the fridge, cabinets, and go to the store for more munchies.

[9sublime]

I've done some pretty embarassing things on alcohol, and under the influence of alcohol I end up with a joint in my mouth when I've quit smoking the stuff.

[not2needy]

I've done some pretty embarassing things on alcohol, and under the influence of alcohol I end up with a joint in my mouth when I've quit smoking the stuff.
My point exactly, alcohol will give you a false sense of security in that anything you do is OK. I have done things when drinking that i wouldn't want anyone to know, plus i have blacked out and not remembered what i did. Never on pot did anything like that happen! They need to make alcohol illegal and legalize MJ. I quit both many many years ago though. Thank God!

[PLC1]

My point exactly, alcohol will give you a false sense of security in that anything you do is OK. I have done things when drinking that i wouldn't want anyone to know, plus i have blacked out and not remembered what i did. Never on pot did anything like that happen! They need to make alcohol illegal and legalize MJ. I quit both many many years ago though. Thank God!

It sounds as if you made a good decision in giving up alcohol and MJ entirely. For those who drink moderately, however, there may be some significant health benefits to alcohol consumption:

The moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages, defined as 1 to 2 drinks per day, has been suggested to increase overall survival rates in a number of different population groups. One standard drink is generally considered to be 1.5 oz of liquor, 5 oz of wine, or 12 oz of beer. The patient groups that appear to benefit most from light to moderate drinking, middle-aged men and women, are also those who are at increased risk for developing cardiovascular disease. Thus, the reduction in total mortality that is associated with moderate alcohol consumption, generally a 30% reduction in risk, is believed to be the result of a reduction in the risk of developing atherosclerotic disease.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/111/2/e10

Let's not try alcohol prohibition again.

[not2needy]

PLC1
You're right, it was a good move on my part to give it all up. I know there are medical advantages to a glass of wine occasionally etc, but some people,(ME) can't drink like that. I never had to go to AA or through any program to quit though, i just decided one day that i never wanted to do it again and i just quit, that day. The same way with pot. I'm lucky though, i was told by an expert in the field that i don't have and addictive personality, and quitting is just as simple as that. Everyone isn't as lucky though, i sympathize with them.

[palerider]

I think the ultimate thing about marajuana prohibition in terms of who is right or wrong is that the prohibition isn't working successfully, and never really has since it came in.

So what do you propose, because a radical step is needed. Cut peoples hands off for smoking the stuff, or relax the laws and let the police deal with the high crime rates.


The prohibition on murder, and armed robbery and arson etc., etc., etc., isn't working very well either. Does that mean that we should just strike the laws from the books?

[palerider]

I havent distanced myself from ANYTHING in this post ..I dont have to I own You. your simply not educated in this area of expertise .its ok I understand completly.

Im sure the treaders do too you do realize that everyone who has participated in this post has told you that you have been soundly beaten in debate

Rants.hardly .........................Conclusive documented Proof

absolutly

have a nice day


Documented by a man who doesn't even have a degree from a community college. Some evidence.

[vyo476]

The prohibition on murder, and armed robbery and arson etc., etc., etc., isn't working very well either. Does that mean that we should just strike the laws from the books?

The crimes you mentioned have victims. While you've established that marijuana can have a detrimental effect on the user, there aren't any firmly-established societal negatives present. The only victim then is the user himself and if he wants to victimize himself why not let him?

[palerider]

The crimes you mentioned have victims. While you've established that marijuana can have a detrimental effect on the user, there aren't any firmly-established societal negatives present. The only victim then is the user himself and if he wants to victimize himself why not let him?


Because the nature of our society is to help those who have victimized themselves and I don't want my tax money spent supporting people who engage in self destructive activities.

If our society was one that would let them live with the consequences of their actions and not offer help when they make a mess of their lives or wreck their health, it would be different, but our society isn't like that. You and I have to pay for their upkeep and I simply don't see any sound reason to add one more item to the ever growing list of legal ways to wreck your life and live off of someone else's dime.

[Rokerijdude11]

Documented by a man who doesn't even have a degree from a community college. Some evidence.

Prove it wrong pal

collect the money or STFU

[palerider]

Prove it wrong pal

collect the money or STFU

I already did prove it wrong with legitimate, credible scientific research.

I sent him the research that says that he is wrong and am eagerly waiting to see what sort of shuck and jive he gives for welching on his bet.

[Rokerijdude11]

I already did prove it wrong with legitimate, credible scientific research.

I sent him the research that says that he is wrong and am eagerly waiting to see what sort of shuck and jive he gives for welching on his bet.

Really? which points have you proven Wrong? seeing that there are several chapters and about 40 pages or more of
credits in the book showing where all the information came from. which point have you proven wrong? or are you claiming they are all wrong?


you say you sent him the info? really Ill Brb

[Rokerijdude11]

when did you send it to him? he hasnt recieved anything from you concerning this ? did you use palerider? or your name? and when was the date you sent the info ? Ill get back to you again,my belief is that your full of it!!!

which point has he made that you have proven wrong EXACTLY ......................???

please do tell the readers and myself

which point did Jack Herer make in his Book,that you believe you have proven wrong? EXACTLY which point please?

[PLC1]

Because the nature of our society is to help those who have victimized themselves and I don't want my tax money spent supporting people who engage in self destructive activities.

If our society was one that would let them live with the consequences of their actions and not offer help when they make a mess of their lives or wreck their health, it would be different, but our society isn't like that. You and I have to pay for their upkeep and I simply don't see any sound reason to add one more item to the ever growing list of legal ways to wreck your life and live off of someone else's dime.

Exactly why users should pay a tax to make up for the costs to society. I don't want my tax money used pay for someone else's "upkeep," either. Let's simply tax the product, just as we do with cigarettes.

[vyo476]

Exactly why users should pay a tax to make up for the costs to society. I don't want my tax money used pay for someone else's "upkeep," either. Let's simply tax the product, just as we do with cigarettes.

Sounds solid to me.

[r0beph]

If alcohol was illegal, it would be regareded as a gateway drug too. But because it is legal it isn't.

Yes it is in regards to addiction medicine. Any support of an addiction can lead to other forms of indulgence. Addictive personalities are NOT 1/0, on or off, black and white. They're ,like all things a gradient. It becomes more obvious in that those that would be at high risk of addiction to hard substance (due to genetic/environmental reasons) would either begin with alcohol or marijuana. Those with a high drive for addictive indulgence would, as the effects of the drug requires higher and higher doses, move to use the harder substances whether alcohol or marijuana was the fuse of choice. It's tough to actually pin down the initial snowball's seed. I don't exactly like the term gateway drug however since it's been bastardized to mean something that WILL lead to heavier substance abuse, where it should mean that it'll likely be the FIRST step in a high level addiction risk's path towards said harder substances. Blame DARE and it's spin offs for that misnomer.

I remain on the idea that ALL addictions should be treated when uncovered instead of jail which does nothing for them. Since behavioral disorders that have the appearance of choice in their execution tend to be given that credence, people who don't have such personalities ponder "Why don't they just stop?" Simply, they cannot. Recreational use of marijuana by non-addicts should be just as legal as alcohol. Addiction itself should perhaps have some legislation to attempt treatment. I say if any crime is committed due to substance addiction (not simply from (ab)use since this doesn't denote addiction thus punitive punishment is called for, unless you want my argument that the majority of crime is due to some form of mental illness) then treatment should be the answer. But regardless, (ab)use itself shouldn't be criminal.


Sounds solid to me.

We actually do =).... http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/TaxRates.pdf however a lot of courts are knocking this down, due to double jepordy, since the tax not being placed on said drugs would bring criminal/civil liability for something that already has the criminal and civil penalties. This obviously isn't the answer though to what is being said. Perhaps moving to simply fine those who paid tax for the possession of a taxed controlled substance and charging those criminally with a tax evasion law with similar penalties to possession of the substance as it stands currently along with the fine for posession of the product as per the tax paid substance. I don't really like this method in any form though, to be honest.

[9sublime]

From what I've seen over the years, it seems much of America frowns on people getting drunk, while in the UK it is acceptable and even more so on the continent. Getting drunk isn't that bad for you, as long as you don't do it every couple of days.

[palerider]

Really? which points have you proven Wrong? seeing that there are several chapters and about 40 pages or more of
credits in the book showing where all the information came from. which point have you proven wrong? or are you claiming they are all wrong?


you say you sent him the info? really Ill Brb

Yeah, and if any of the information you have linked to is any indication, most of it is as much as 20 years old.

Just looking through the credits, I see stuff like this:

Reign of Law: A Tale of the Kentucky Hemp Fields, 1900
HEMP, Farmer's Bulletin No. 1935, 1943
The Hemperor's Classic Clip Collection, 1985-1998
"Can We Have Rope Without Dope?" Popular Science, 1943
"Army Study of Marihuana Smokers..." Newsweek, 1945
"Rather Fight Than Switch?" Whole Life Times, 1985
"Marijuana More Dangerous Than Heroin or Cocaine," 1938
Authorities Examine Pot Claims, 1989
"The Chemistry of Reefer Madness," Omni, 1989
Doonesbury, by Garry Trudeau:rolleyes: :D


I didn't see a reference to anything that could be considered real science and what might have passed for science to an uneducated man was nearly 20 years old and most was over 50 years old.

You call this a thoroughly researched, and documented book?

Scientific information has a shelf life. When new science comes along and proves that old ideas and theories are wrong, their shelf life is expired. Jack Herer's shelf life, and credibility, expired long ago.

[palerider]

Exactly why users should pay a tax to make up for the costs to society. I don't want my tax money used pay for someone else's "upkeep," either. Let's simply tax the product, just as we do with cigarettes.

So you believe that the taxes paid on cigarettes pay for cigarette related health problems, and the taxes on alcohol pay for alcohol related health problems. The taxes, even if they were reserved especially for those problems, wouldn't begin to cover the costs. The expenses are on of the reasons the dutch government is looking towards ending their current drug policy. It simply costs far too much and the taxes don't begin to cover them.

[palerider]

Sounds solid to me.


Then provide some credible information that proves that cigarette taxes cover the cost of cigarette related health issues and none of my tax dollars are spent on caring for those who have wrecked their health with cigarettes.

[9sublime]

Then provide some credible information that proves that cigarette taxes cover the cost of cigarette related health issues and none of my tax dollars are spent on caring for those who have wrecked their health with cigarettes.

Stop moaning about the cost of people in your healthcare while your government spends billions of dollars sending missiles into foreign countries every decade.

[PLC1]

Then provide some credible information that proves that cigarette taxes cover the cost of cigarette related health issues and none of my tax dollars are spent on caring for those who have wrecked their health with cigarettes.

There is a lot of controversy over this very issue. I don't think anyone has definitively proven that tobacco taxes do or do not provide enough revenue to pay for the health care costs related to smoking.

I suppose if some non political body would undertake a non biased study, they might come up with an answer, but that only happens in the land of Oz, never in the real world.

[Rokerijdude11]

Yeah, and if any of the information you have linked to is any indication, most of it is as much as 20 years old.

Just looking through the credits, I see stuff like this:

Reign of Law: A Tale of the Kentucky Hemp Fields, 1900
HEMP, Farmer's Bulletin No. 1935, 1943
The Hemperor's Classic Clip Collection, 1985-1998
"Can We Have Rope Without Dope?" Popular Science, 1943
"Army Study of Marihuana Smokers..." Newsweek, 1945
"Rather Fight Than Switch?" Whole Life Times, 1985
"Marijuana More Dangerous Than Heroin or Cocaine," 1938
Authorities Examine Pot Claims, 1989
"The Chemistry of Reefer Madness," Omni, 1989
Doonesbury, by Garry Trudeau:rolleyes: :D


I didn't see a reference to anything that could be considered real science and what might have passed for science to an uneducated man was nearly 20 years old and most was over 50 years old.

You call this a thoroughly researched, and documented book?

Scientific information has a shelf life. When new science comes along and proves that old ideas and theories are wrong, their shelf life is expired. Jack Herer's shelf life, and credibility, expired long ago.




I have asked you a DIRECT question..........Am I to assume you are unable to answer it? thats is the case isnt it?Ill ask you again


Which Point That was in Jacks Book Exactly which point have you SUPPOSEDLY proven wrong?

BTW Jack hasnt recieved anything concerning the challenge either yesterday or today


now answer the question......that is if you are able to.......which im sure your not because you have just shown us how full of shat you truly are


Which point that jack made have you proven wrong?

answer it or STFU because your Full of Shat

[Rokerijdude11]

Which point or Points that Jack has Documented with factual information have you supposedly proven wrong?

and where is this so called proof?


you have completly ruined the last shred of credibility you percieved you had on this forum

your full of it


your Unfortunatly Un-educated in this area

can you answer the simple question?

[Rokerijdude11]

Quite frankly folks Pale Rider has been caught here in a complete LIE he hasnt contacted Jack Herer about anything i spoke with Jack this morning via e-mail....


Palerider cannot answer my question because he LIED to you all ....

his credibility is questionable at best


You lose Buddy You Insult Lie and Ignore all the hallmarks of a Loser of a debate....................

your a LIAR pal

[palerider]

There is a lot of controversy over this very issue. I don't think anyone has definitively proven that tobacco taxes do or do not provide enough revenue to pay for the health care costs related to smoking.

I suppose if some non political body would undertake a non biased study, they might come up with an answer, but that only happens in the land of Oz, never in the real world.

If the taxes paid for the health care problems of smokers, what was the purpose of suing tobacco companies for billions under the guise of needing the money to pay for tobacco related health issues?

[palerider]

Which point that jack made have you proven wrong?

That there are health risks associated with smoking pot. Do I need to request that the administration put a crayon feature on the board so I can draw you a picture?

[PLC1]

If the taxes paid for the health care problems of smokers, what was the purpose of suing tobacco companies for billions under the guise of needing the money to pay for tobacco related health issues?

Well, posting
I don't think anyone has definitively proven that tobacco taxes do or do not provide enough revenue to pay for the health care costs related to smoking.
is not quite the same thing as saying that tobacco taxes are enough to pay for tobacco related health care costs, but even if they were proven to cover all costs, don't you think that the lawyers would still sue to try to get just a little more?

[palerider]

Well, posting

is not quite the same thing as saying that tobacco taxes are enough to pay for tobacco related health care costs, but even if they were proven to cover all costs, don't you think that the lawyers would still sue to try to get just a little more?


I am not so sure that a case could be won in court making the claim that the lawsuit was to pay for caring for health problems associated with tobacco if the case could be made that the taxes were sufficient to cover the associated costs.

The point is that there is a growing body of evidence that is pointing towards pot being dangerous to one's health and our system is such that we are going to pay for their care if they can't afford it themselves and there is no sound reason to add another dangerous substance to the already too large list of dangerous substances that we are paying for already.

[r0beph]

I am not so sure that a case could be won in court making the claim that the lawsuit was to pay for caring for health problems associated with tobacco if the case could be made that the taxes were sufficient to cover the associated costs.

The point is that there is a growing body of evidence that is pointing towards pot being dangerous to one's health and our system is such that we are going to pay for their care if they can't afford it themselves and there is no sound reason to add another dangerous substance to the already too large list of dangerous substances that we are paying for already.

No drug is dangerous, except to those who use them. The addiction to substances is a mental health disorder. The substance itself is secondary to the fact the person is addictive. Even if all currently illegal substances were 100% eradicated, these people would likely still find other substances to abuse, if not then perhaps non-substance abuse would occur (sex/gambling/etc) Illegality doesn't change this fact, what should be covered is the counseling needed for high risk addictive personalities (those exhibiting major health risk addictions.) There are tons of studies out there showing the migration of addictive personalities to other substances when their choice of substance is withheld. Again I must say that the substance should remain illegal, however criminalization of those involved with it's possession should not occur but rather treatment for their addiction. second, if a crime is commited while under the influence, it should be treated under legislation that institutes conditions similar to the added penalties used under case specific action. Example Crime X has a max possible 5 yr sentance / 10,000$ fine. Typically you'll see 1-3 years/possibly suspended + probation + 1500$ fine. , if substance is suspected as the instigator of the crime, 1-3 yrs/possible suspension + 1500$ fine + addiction treatment.

this could be any array of crimes and sentances, but the instigation of said crime by the substance should always include treatment. failures of drug testing while on parole/probation as the cause for violation should not be cause for imprisonment but rather inpatient treatment for addiction. Probation/parole violations as reason for incarceration should only apply to actual criminal acts. If imprisonment is given for any crime where drugs were involved as an instigator, inpatient care should be instituted and inclusive time served during the inpatient treatment. Last all charges that simply involve substance posession etc, should be cause for addiction treatment, with no possible incarceration since this is pure nonsense.

This is purely a rough idea, and by no means an example of the final product on any such legislation's final effect.

[palerider]

I would agree with eliminating jail for people who are simply posessing, but I would favor serious fines and jail for those who are unable to pay the fines. And serious prison time for anyone who is involved in trafficking.

[Rokerijdude11]

That there are health risks associated with smoking pot. Do I need to request that the administration put a crayon feature on the board so I can draw you a picture?

Your a Liar Sir Plain and simple

care to produce the correspondence you have claimed to have sent Mr Herer? Dont Bother Your a LIAR and have been caught in a Major lie here..............you seem to have forgotten I am friends with the man you have been lying about contacting

[Rokerijdude11]

That there are health risks associated with smoking pot. Do I need to request that the administration put a crayon feature on the board so I can draw you a picture?

You have still failed in the most simple of tasks...im not sure that your even qualified to use a crayon? you have failed to answer the direct question becuase you are UN-able to do so

[PLC1]

The point is that there is a growing body of evidence that is pointing towards pot being dangerous to one's health and our system is such that we are going to pay for their care if they can't afford it themselves and there is no sound reason to add another dangerous substance to the already too large list of dangerous substances that we are paying for already.

That's why we need to legalize it, then tax it so that the rest of us don't have to pay for the results of its abuse. As it stands now, the profits are going to gangs and drug runners who contribute nothing at all to society. Legalization would take the profits away from the criminal underclass.

I do agree that adding another dangerous substance to the already large list is not a good thing, but we already have rampant pot use, and pot is likely less dangerous than alcohol. Prohibition simply doesn't work.

[Rokerijdude11]

you continue to refer to this "growing body of evidence"? yet you NEVER bring ANY of it forth to substantiate your claim? I wonder why? what you have brought us to date was a bunch of information that was Inconclusive .using words like "MAY"....."Could"..........."possibly"



you have yet to provide us with any evidence that is conclusive in nature Mr Rider? can you? will you?

[vyo476]

List of effects

Cannabis has a broad spectrum of possible cognitive, behavioural, and physiological effects, the occurrence of which vary from user to user. Some of these are the intended effect desired by users, some may be considered desirable depending on the situation, and others are generally considered undesirable. Users of cannabis report that these kinds of effects are more often produced by the sativa species of Cannabis.

Cannabis also has effects that are predominantly physical or sensory, widely believed to be more common with the indica species.

Cognitive effects

* Short or long-term psychosis/schizophrenic disorders that begin in some young users

* Varying amounts of paranoia and anxiety in some users

* Loss of coordination and distorted sense of time in some users

* Impairment of short-term memory in some users

* Auditory or visual hallucinations at high doses in some users

* Increased mental activity, like metacognition and introspective or meditative states of mind in some users

* Relaxation or stress reduction in some users

* Entheogenesis (eg. per Rastafarian users, more "Jah-Vibrations") in some users

Although studies have not proven altogether conclusive on the subject, recent work suggests that the cognitive effects of cannabis use under 70 joints a week are wholly impermanent, and that most afformentioned effects subside after about a month.

behavioural effects

* Varying degrees of euphoria and feelings of well-being

Physiological effects

* Antiemetic properties (in moderate doses)

* Lowered intraocular pressure, beneficial to glaucoma patients and sufferers of certain types of headaches, cramps, and eye pain.

* Dilation of blood vessels (vasodilation), resulting in:

o Increased blood flow and heart rate (possibly even tachycardia)

o Reddening or drying of eyes

* Lower blood pressure while standing. Higher blood pressure while sitting (note that this can lead to instances of orthostatic hypotension, also known as head rush).

* Increased appetite (often referred to as "the munchies"), an effect of stimulation of the endocannabinoid system, which affects body weight, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia. though recent and anecdotal evidence also points to it as an appetite suppressant.

* Varying degrees of dry (cotton) mouth

* Dilation of alveoli (air sacs) in lungs, resulting in deeper respiration and increased coughing.

Lethal dose

It is generally considered to be impossible to achieve a lethal overdose by smoking cannabis. According to the Merck Index, 12th edition, the LD50, the lethal dose for 50% of rats tested by inhalation, is 42 mg/kg of body weight. That is the equivalent of a 165 lb (75 kg) man ingesting all of the THC in 21 one-gram cigarettes of high-potency (15% THC) cannabis buds at once, assuming no THC was lost through burning or exhalation. For oral consumption, the LD50 for rats is 1270 mg/kg and 730 mg/kg for males and females, respectively, equivalent to the THC in about a pound of 15% THC cannabis. Only with intravenous administration - an unheard-of method of use - may such a level be even theoretically possible. Also, there is no practicality of overdosing, and virtually no chance of accidental overdose while smoking cannabis, considering the ratio of cannabis required to saturate cannaboid receptors to the amount of cannabis required to have a fatal over dose is 1:40,000.

There has only ever been one recorded verdict (although not ultimately upheld) of fatal overdose due to cannabis. In January 2004, Lee Maisey of Pembrokeshire, Wales was found dead. The coroner's report stated "Death due to probable cannabis toxicity". It had been reported that Maisey smoked about six joints a day. Mr. Maisey's blood contained 130 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml) of the THC metabolite THC-COOH. However, the validity of the finding did not stand up well under review. As reported on 2004-01-28 in the Neue Züricher Zeitung, the Federal Health Ministry of Switzerland asked Dr. Rudolf Brenneisen, a professor at the department for clinical research at the University of Bern, to review the data of this case. Dr. Brenneisen said that the data of the toxicological analysis and collected by autopsy were "scanty and not conclusive" and that the conclusion "death by cannabis intoxication" was "not legitimate."

Health issues and the effects of cannabis

The most significant confounding factor is the use of other drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, by test subjects in conjunction with cannabis. When subjects using only cannabis were combined in the same sample with subjects using other drugs as well, researchers could not reach a conclusion as to whether their findings were caused by cannabis, other drugs, or the interaction between them. In addition, research using cannabis is heavily restricted in many countries, making it difficult to get new studies funded or approved. Since there are so many different compounds in cannabis, it is difficult to predict or accurately measure its effects. Some conclusions established with some degree of certainty that cannabis is less likely to cause emphysema or cancer than tobacco; that it is unlikely to cause birth defects or developmental delays in the children of users, and in a study done by the University of California Los Angeles in 2006, that even heavy marijuana smokers do not increase their risk for lung cancer. According to a United Kingdom government report, using cannabis is less dangerous than both tobacco and alcohol in social harms, physical harm and addiction.

Newer research has also shown that cannabis use is generally higher among sufferers of schizophrenia, but causality has not been established and confirmed that sustained early-adolescent cannabis use among certain genetically predisposed individuals has an elevated correlation with certain mental illness outcomes, ranging from psychotic episodes to clinical schizophrenia.

************************************************** ******

The full fact sheet/report is here: http://www.medic8.com/medicines/Marijuana.html

As for the language semantics...you "could" or "may possibly" incur negative physical effects from using any number of drugs. Drugs don't ALWAYS cause their harmful effects. Marijuana is much less potent than harder drugs and so it is less likely to induce negative effects. However, the possibility of a negative effect remains.

[Rokerijdude11]

List of effects

Cannabis has a broad spectrum of possible cognitive, behavioural, and physiological effects, the occurrence of which vary from user to user. Some of these are the intended effect desired by users, some may be considered desirable depending on the situation, and others are generally considered undesirable. Users of cannabis report that these kinds of effects are more often produced by the sativa species of Cannabis.

..generally considered undesirable".....?
By whom? By what standards.....more often produced by sativa plants? This is really a laughable statement as generally, Sativas are a milder high, with LESS THC than in the Indica varieties...........again the statment reads as an opinion not a conclusive piece of evidence?

Cannabis also has effects that are predominantly physical or sensory, widely believed to be more common with the indica species.

What? they are "Widely Believed"...........
no sir hardly conclusive evidence being presentedhere either......for if there were it would certainly read .....widely Known.......or widely documented ...or widely accepted or widely proven.....................not widely believed? that is inconclusive..

Cognitive effects

* Short or long-term psychosis/schizophrenic disorders that begin in some young users

* Varying amounts of paranoia and anxiety in some users

* Loss of coordination and distorted sense of time in some users

* Impairment of short-term memory in some users

* Auditory or visual hallucinations at high doses in some users

* Increased mental activity, like metacognition and introspective or meditative states of mind in some users

* Relaxation or stress reduction in some users

* Entheogenesis (eg. per Rastafarian users, more "Jah-Vibrations") in some users

Although studies have not proven altogether conclusive on the subject, recent work [color=red]suggests that the cognitive effects of cannabis use under 70 joints a week are wholly impermanent, and that most afformentioned effects subside after about a month.


[color=red] again for the most part alot of ifs and maybes here yes some of the symptoms are correct in this llisting ......but most importntly is the final analysis at the end of this last section............impermanent,


behavioural effects

* Varying degrees of euphoria and feelings of well-being

Physiological effects

* Antiemetic properties (in moderate doses)

* Lowered intraocular pressure, beneficial to glaucoma patients and sufferers of certain types of headaches, cramps, and eye pain.

* Dilation of blood vessels (vasodilation), resulting in:

o Increased blood flow and heart rate (possibly even tachycardia)

o Reddening or drying of eyes

* Lower blood pressure while standing. Higher blood pressure while sitting (note that this can lead to instances of orthostatic hypotension, also known as head rush).

* Increased appetite (often referred to as "the munchies"), an effect of stimulation of the endocannabinoid system, which affects body weight, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia. though recent and anecdotal evidence also points to it as an appetite suppressant.

* Varying degrees of dry (cotton) mouth

* Dilation of alveoli (air sacs) in lungs, resulting in deeper respiration and increased coughing.

I wont dispute these list items above ......they all subside after the buzz is gone so they too are "Impermanent"


Lethal dose

It is generally considered to be impossible to achieve a lethal overdose by smoking cannabis. According to the Merck Index, 12th edition, the LD50, the lethal dose for 50% of rats tested by inhalation, is 42 mg/kg of body weight. That is the equivalent of a 165 lb (75 kg) man ingesting all of the THC in 21 one-gram cigarettes of high-potency (15% THC) cannabis buds at once, assuming no THC was lost through burning or exhalation. For oral consumption, the LD50 for rats is 1270 mg/kg and 730 mg/kg for males and females, respectively, equivalent to the THC in about a pound of 15% THC cannabis. Only with intravenous administration - an unheard-of method of use - may such a level be even theoretically possible. Also, there is no practicality of overdosing, and virtually no chance of accidental overdose while smoking cannabis, considering the ratio of cannabis required to saturate cannaboid receptors to the amount of cannabis required to have a fatal over dose is 1:40,000.

There has only ever been one recorded verdict (although not ultimately upheld) of fatal overdose due to cannabis. In January 2004, Lee Maisey of Pembrokeshire, Wales was found dead. The coroner's report stated "Death due to probable cannabis toxicity". It had been reported that Maisey smoked about six joints a day. Mr. Maisey's blood contained 130 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml) of the THC metabolite THC-COOH. However, the validity of the finding did not stand up well under review. As reported on 2004-01-28 in the Neue Züricher Zeitung, the Federal Health Ministry of Switzerland asked Dr. Rudolf Brenneisen, a professor at the department for clinical research at the University of Bern, to review the data of this case. Dr. Brenneisen said that the data of the toxicological analysis and collected by autopsy were "scanty and not conclusive" and that the conclusion "death by cannabis intoxication" was "not legitimate."

Health issues and the effects of cannabis

The most significant confounding factor is the use of other drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, by test subjects in conjunction with cannabis. When subjects using only cannabis were combined in the same sample with subjects using other drugs as well, researchers could not reach a conclusion as to whether their findings were caused by cannabis, other drugs, or the interaction between them. In addition, research using cannabis is heavily restricted in many countries, making it difficult to get new studies funded or approved. Since there are so many different compounds in cannabis, it is difficult to predict or accurately measure its effects. Some conclusions established with some degree of certainty that cannabis is less likely to cause emphysema or cancer than tobacco; that it is unlikely to cause birth defects or developmental delays in the children of users, and in a study done by the University of California Los Angeles in 2006, that even heavy marijuana smokers do not increase their risk for lung cancer. According to a United Kingdom government report, using cannabis is less dangerous than both tobacco and alcohol in social harms, physical harm and addiction.

Newer research has also shown that cannabis use is generally higher among sufferers of schizophrenia, but causality has not been established and confirmed that sustained early-adolescent cannabis use among certain genetically predisposed individuals has an elevated correlation with certain mental illness outcomes, ranging from psychotic episodes to clinical schizophrenia.

************************************************** ******

The full fact sheet/report is here: http://www.medic8.com/medicines/Marijuana.html

As for the language semantics...you "could" or "may possibly" incur negative physical effects from using any number of drugs. Drugs don't ALWAYS cause their harmful effects. Marijuana is much less potent than harder drugs and so it is less likely to induce negative effects. However, the possibility of a negative effect remains.

Indeed but alas the evidence in large is all theory and conjecture though most of the general form and information is correct .............this article in many ways states the truths and in some ways speculates on further truths it was a good piece overall

and i agree with much of it

[PLC1]

Although studies have[color=red] not proven altogether conclusive on the subject[color], recent work suggests that the cognitive effects of cannabis use under 70 joints a week are wholly impermanent, and that most afformentioned effects subside after about a month.

In other words, it hasn't been conclusively proven that the effects of cannabis are impermanent. To put it another way, those effects could be permanent. Your lack of comprehension of the paragraphs you cite are evidence that, in your case at least, there may have been some permanent effects of smoking pot for 30 years. That evidence is not conclusive, of course, as you may have had a joint in the past few minutes for all we know.


again for the most part alot of ifs and maybes here yes some of the symptoms are correct in this llisting ......but most importntly is the final analysis at the end of this last section............impermanent,

You're right, of course, in saying that those effects could be impermanent. Most of the effects of alcohol abuse are also impermanent. Once the buzz is gone, once the person who has overindulged recovers from the hangover, there are no further effects, however: Long term use does have some permanent effects that are well known. It is possible (not proven, perhaps but possible and even likely) that the long term effects of pot smoking are likewise permanent.

Why not try a little experiment: Quit smoking the stuff for a while, and see if your reading comprehension and clarity of writing improve? That would provide evidence to suggest whether the effects are, in your case at least, permanent.

[9sublime]

Roker, you simply cannot say there are NO health risks that come from smoking cannabis. If you smoke most things, you are going to damage your lungs. Saying that, if thats a reason to keep pot illegal, then tobacco should be the same.
I also think cannabis does cause mental health issues if it is not smoked in moderation, but I think that it is low, and is totally blown out of proportion.

[r0beph]

Your a Liar Sir Plain and simple

care to produce the correspondence you have claimed to have sent Mr Herer? Dont Bother Your a LIAR and have been caught in a Major lie here..............you seem to have forgotten I am friends with the man you have been lying about contacting

While I'm on the legalize side of this argument, I must say there are inherent health risks to inhaling ANY burning substance. I mean come on. If not all burning materials didn't cause health problems we'd make houses out of those materials. That way they don't die of smoke inhalation. This is just a given, denying this is simply illogical.

Next, anything that effects you mentally as marijuana does, is effecting your brain chemistry, this is simply fact. Modifying brain chemistry definitely has side effects. Pharmaceutically controlled substances, anti-psychotics/anti-depressents/etc. typically have gone through rigorous testing and dose control. Even then, you have special cases where the chemical modifications to the brain result in odd negative side effects. This is in highly controlled usage. Unregulated use *unregulated as per no dose control, variable strengths, adulterants, not referring to the legality* will inherently have a higher level of unpredictable side effects. To assume that the acute effects are all that exist is purely uneducated. The long term mental effects exist, what they are isn't entirely clear, some are negative, some may be positive. But there is no perfect drug, no drug that has no ill side effects and only positive. Due to the very nature of what makes you "high" with any drug that is chosen, brain chemistry is being modified outside the norm. You cannot with any amount of logic, say that there is NO health risk involved with this.

There is no conspiracy by the government to hold down the "people" by illegalizing pot. It isn't some attempt at stopping you from broadening your mind. Fact is medical logic shows there is a definite danger, more mental than physical, I'd say. The ultimate problem is, however, the manner in which america attempts to avert these problems that do occur, we criminalize things instead of offering treatment. This is the big issue. This being said, not all who smoked pot are addicts. A large number are. My point earlier was simply saying that any crime involving drug USE (robbery while on methamphetamine, etc) should carry the same prison sentance with inclusive inpatient treatment of the addiction. In other charges with purely a drug use relation, such as possession, should only carry diversions as the 'punishment', not jail.

Addiction is NOT drug centric, and this thread by its very title, misses the point. DRUGS should not be criminal, they should be illegal yes, but not criminal. They should all infer treatment when instigating to crime.

Addiction is a primary, chronic, neurobiologic disease, with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations. It is characterized by behaviors that include one or more of the following: impaired control over drug use, compulsive use, continued use despite harm, and craving.

When they say despite harm, they don't mean that you do it even though you know it MAY bring damages later in life, but rather you're experiencing damage related to it (including committing crimes under the instigation of the drug, continued use even though health decay is occurring, and so on. ) Society is so confused on the subject matter it seems, drugs do not cause addictions, addiction predisposition does, drugs are just one thing you an end up addicted to when you have the addictive predisposition. Society seems to think criminalizing the use of drugs in anyway will help, that's just nuts.

[palerider]

Your a Liar Sir Plain and simple

care to produce the correspondence you have claimed to have sent Mr Herer? Dont Bother Your a LIAR and have been caught in a Major lie here..............you seem to have forgotten I am friends with the man you have been lying about contacting

Your friend huh? Guess that explains why you would suggest that a man who has no education and referenced Doonsbury in his book would qualify as the foremost authority in the world on the physiological effects of a substance on the human body.

Tell him to put down his bong and check his email. Also, my email name is not palerider anything.com.

[Rokerijdude11]

In other words, it hasn't been conclusively proven that the effects of cannabis are impermanent. To put it another way, those effects could be permanent.

please sir explain to me How COULD is considered to be a conclusive statement? or how COULD is being used as evidence of something?

Your lack of comprehension of the paragraphs you cite are evidence that, in your case at least, there may have been some permanent effects of smoking pot for 30 years. That evidence is not conclusive, of course, as you may have had a joint in the past few minutes for all we know.


AHA yes lets not address all of what i said.....Its far easier to make Childish lil remarks about my being a smoker....apparently you didnt bother to read all of what i wrote ? Its apparent by this response of yours I wont repeat myself the readers can see what i said above. Why you are un-able to completly read things ,before spewing crap from your fingers, is a question i cant answer?

in case you missed it i actually agreed with a majority of what was written. I think the comprehension issues are in your department buddy. as the word "COULD" is hardly conclusive and certainly not evidentry...

have a nice day




You're right, of course, in saying that those effects could be impermanent. Most of the effects of alcohol abuse are also impermanent. Once the buzz is gone, once the person who has overindulged recovers from the hangover, there are no further effects, however:

Ok then we are in agreement here so woot woot woot
Long term use does have some permanent effects that are well known. It is possible (not proven, perhaps but possible and even likely) that the long term effects of pot smoking are likewise permanent.

well if they are so well known why is it that you seem to have forgottent to provide us with these effects and causes? again you are referring to Un-Substaniated CLAIMS and OPINIONS providing us arguments based on "Not Proven" ....."Could" ,,,,,,"possibly" these sir are not factual statements they are opinions......do you have any substantiated evidence to support YOUR opinions?because at this point you havent really provided us ANYTHING of value? what are these so called permanent effects? do you have proof that they exist? and do you have PROOF that they are real?

or are we basing evrything on the idea that .....well they COULD have permanent effects?


Why not try a little experiment: Quit smoking the stuff for a while, and see if your reading comprehension and clarity of writing improve? That would provide evidence to suggest whether the effects are, in your case at least, permanent.
AHHHHHHH yes....again You know i continue to have the upper hand in this thread.It is evidentry by your, and others, in-ability to debate my points. As well as the fact, that the best you all can seem to come up with, Are childish snide remarks concerning the fact that im a smoker, and not afraid to admit it. And even MORE childish, snide remarks, concerning my grammar, and and comprehension skill,,

Is this is the best you have? is to insult me? I am in the drivers seat STILL .....while you were holding your moms apron strings, and going to school , to be so smug in english, and grammar....I was in the US MILITARY, over in the Indian Ocean .....waiting to go into Iran..........you learned English.....................I protected your right to be able to do that..........while you learned punctuation I kept your freedom alive......fair trade in my book pal

[Rokerijdude11]

Your friend huh? Guess that explains why you would suggest that a man who has no education and referenced Doonsbury in his book would qualify as the foremost authority in the world on the physiological effects of a substance on the human body.

Tell him to put down his bong and check his email. Also, my email name is not palerider anything.com.



This is the last time ill talk to you on this because you are a LIAR.....and have been caught as such. Do you really think i was stupid enough to say hey Jack did you get any correspondence from a guy named palerider?

only you could be that simple in the head. ohhhh yess more insults!!! Again I am in the drivers seat you have nothing but insults and now LIES

your a LIAR .....plain and simple buddy you LIED and were caught...............

have a nice day Mr Liar rider

[PLC1]

AHHHHHHH yes....again You know i continue to have the upper hand in this thread.It is evidentry by yours and others in-ability to debate my points. and the fact that the best you all can seem to come up with is childish snide remarks concerning the fact that im a smoker and not afraid to admit it. and even MORE childish snide remarks concerning my grammar and and comprehension skill,,

Oh, yes, your habit of proving my arguments by your rambling and ungrammatical responses, of calling your opponents liars, and of believing that text written in red somehow has more impact than that in black, has certainly given you the upper hand.:rolleyes: You still don't understand the point I made, nor do you seem to understand the reference you yourself cited about how the effects of pot smoking might or might not be permanent.

As for the "childish and snide remarks concerning your grammar and reading comprehension", my usual strategy is simply to ignore grammar and spelling and get to the meaning behind the words, however lacking they may be in the conventions of writing. In your case, however, the fact that you can't seem to understand plain English, and that you can't write a paragraph that calls more attention to the content than to the errors it contains, serves to make my argument that long term pot smoking can cause some cognitive problems for the user.

this is the best you have? is to insult me? I am in the drivers seat STILL .....while you were holding your moms apron strings and going to school to be so smug in english and grammar....i was in the US MILITARY over in the Indian Ocean .....waiting to go into Iran..........you learned English.....................I protected your right to be able to do that..........while you learned puntuation I kept your freedom alive......fair trade in my book pal

Does all of that mean that you were too busy fighting to go to school and learn to write? Well, if that's so, then you have countered my argument that your style of writing is a result of having smoked pot for thirty years.

Unless you were in the US military in the Indian Ocean and waiting to go to Iran back in the '50s, you were not fighting anyone while I was "holding my mother's apron strings." I left my parent's home in '60, and have only been back for visits since.

Say, what did your superior officers have to say about your choice of smoking materials? Doesn't the military frown on pot smoking?

[Rokerijdude11]

Oh, yes, your habit of proving my arguments by your rambling and ungrammatical responses, of calling your opponents liars, and of believing that text written in red somehow has more impact than that in black, has certainly given you the upper hand.:rolleyes:


No sir it is that right there..........your continual Insultous manners and Name calling........you should be one to talk pal..I have the total Upper hand here you all have nothing but conjecture and opinions put up or shut up

You still don't understand the point I made, nor do you seem to understand the reference you yourself cited about how the effects of pot smoking might or might not be permanent.


actually I do..you just dont read things before you spew.....thats all.I never purported that ANY eefects of marijuana were PERMANENT,,,I did however state that many of the symptoms cited were IMPERMANENT as in they go away when the buzz does you apprently didnt read that part ???ok [/color]




As for the "childish and snide remarks concerning your grammar and reading comprehension", my usual strategy is simply to ignore grammar and spelling and get to the meaning behind the words, however lacking they may be in the conventions of writing. In your case, however, the fact that you can't seem to understand plain English, and that you can't write a paragraph that calls more attention to the content than to the errors it contains, serves to make my argument that long term pot smoking can cause some cognitive problems for the user.



see there you go again More childish snide remarks concerning my smoking and Grammar .....are you kidding? you expect that anyone will read you rant and see any validity in anything your saying?

No sir It is I who should be thanking YOU, for continuing to prove MY POINT each and every time you respond...notice how you dont discuss ANY of the issues? Notice how you just attack My grammar? Notice how ineffectual you really are? the readers do.

Frankly Grammar isnt really an issue in my world pal.And I really dont care if it is up to yours or anyone elses standards. This is a politicla Message Board Not english 107.........I am atop the heap and your at the bottom slinging crap

Does all of that mean that you were too busy fighting to go to school and learn to write? Well, if that's so, then you have countered my argument that your style of writing is a result of having smoked pot for thirty years.


BOY that sure seems to be EXACTLY what i am telling you............I was in the Navy when i was 16 sparky.I turned 17 my 3rd week in Boot........who has time for grammar? I live in a real world.....


Unless you were in the US military in the Indian Ocean and waiting to go to Iran back in the '50s, you were not fighting anyone while I was "holding my mother's apron strings." I left my parent's home in '60, and have only been back for visits since.
well good for you sparky.... i have been out of my parents home since i was 15 years of age ...i only visit them as well isnt that swell!
Say, what did your superior officers have to say about your choice of smoking materials? Doesn't the military frown on pot smoking?

hah hahhahahhah

man arent you the shat? go back in this thread and you can clearly see my position on smoking during my enlistment ...well your answer is in this thread .

[PLC1]

see there you go again More childish snide remarks concerning my smoking and Grammar .....are you kidding? you expect that anyone will read you rant and see any validity in anything your saying?

No sir It is I who should be thanking YOU, for continuing to prove MY POINT each and every time you respond...notice how you dont discuss ANY of the issues? Notice how you just attack My grammar? Notice how ineffectual you really are? the readers do.

Actually, I'm quite sure that the other readers are following my points.

Frankly Grammar isnt really an issue in my world pal.And I really dont care if it is up to yours or anyone elses standards. This is a politicla Message Board Not english 107.........I am atop the heap and your at the bottom slinging crap

That's quite obvious, and I generally agree. I just wondered if there was some connection between your lack of convention and your pot smoking. According to the rest of your post, perhaps I was wrong about that:

Does all of that mean that you were too busy fighting to go to school and learn to write? Well, if that's so, then you have countered my argument that your style of writing is a result of having smoked pot for thirty years.


BOY that sure seems to be EXACTLY what i am telling you............I was in the Navy when i was 16 sparky.I turned 17 my 3rd week in Boot........who has time for grammar? I live in a real world.....


OK, no more references to grammar and punctuation. You've convinced me that there is a chance that your inability in that regard is simply a lack of opportunity to pursue education and not a result of smoking pot. From now on, I'll simply reference your illogical arguments. Promise.;)


Unless you were in the US military in the Indian Ocean and waiting to go to Iran back in the '50s, you were not fighting anyone while I was "holding my mother's apron strings." I left my parent's home in '60, and have only been back for visits since.
well good for you sparky.... i have been out of my parents home since i was 15 years of age ...i only visit them as well isnt that swell!

Which, if you go back and reread, wasn't the point at all. Try again.

[Rokerijdude11]

While I'm on the legalize side of this argument, I must say there are inherent health risks to inhaling ANY burning substance. I mean come on. If not all burning materials didn't cause health problems we'd make houses out of those materials. That way they don't die of smoke inhalation. This is just a given, denying this is simply illogical.

Excuse me? I seem to be having an issue with what you wrote here? Are you trying to tell me my house is Non-Combustible? wood,shingles,tiles,siding, ?

all of these materials are combustible.......they all produce smoke ......i seem to be missing something? are you saying we would build our house out of marijuana? i dont see your point here???

yes ill agree inhaling smoke is a possible problem and may have complications over a long period......I just watched a report last night on the news about the quality of air in my vehicle during my morning and afternoon commutes

the levels of toxicity are ALARMING and DANGEROUS it was said up to 20 fold of ciggarette smoke ...........based on this information.Driving my auto to work is far far more toxic to my body than smoking pot

also there are new methods of smoking that eliminate the un-wanted carcinogens one of these is Vapourization.the other is the manufacturing of what is known as Ice water hasj or Bubble hasj.which eliminates 95 percent or more of the plant from the equation

vapourizing does Not BURN anythig never producing a flame.i prefer the Ice Hasj Myself and its about all i smoke these days it consists of Trichomes full of THC .theses are Microscopic "bubble" that are on the plant they are seperated from the plant material by freezing them and breaking them off


what is left is 80-97% pure THC no clorophyl no plant material.....minimal smoke as it vapourizes the sacs filled with THC...............so there are methods currently being used to alleviate the harmful aspects of inhaling smoke

Next, anything that effects you mentally as marijuana does, is effecting your brain chemistry, this is simply fact. Modifying brain chemistry definitely has side effects. Pharmaceutically controlled substances,


Well of course it effects you ? why smoke it if it didnt? This is the large reason many use it. again I must ask you though? Are you inferring here, that these physiological changes are permanent, and damaging? if so do you have CONCLUSIVE PROOF supported By Evidentry data? or are you simply stating an opinion here?...I have seen NO conclusive evidence anywhere to support this theory? please show it if that is what you are inferring


anti-psychotics/anti-depressents/etc. typically have gone through rigorous testing and dose control. Even then, you have special cases where the chemical modifications to the brain result in odd negative side effects. This is in highly controlled usage. Unregulated use *unregulated as per no dose control, variable strengths, adulterants, not referring to the legality* will inherently have a higher level of unpredictable side effects. To assume that the acute effects are all that exist is purely uneducated. The long term mental effects exist, what they are isn't entirely clear, some are negative, some may be positive. But there is no perfect drug, no drug that has no ill side effects and only positive.

again i must ask of you please provide me/us with sub-stantiated, CONCLUSIVE proof, supported by evidentry data. To assume that permanent effects of chemical change in the brain,without evidentry data to support it is uneducated...Can you, and Will you produce evidentry data, to support the theory, that there are Ill side effects, that are In any way permanent or lasting? I doubt it, but i welcome it..... if you have it. I also would like to see the list of Ill side effects, and how they are percieved to play into this all.


Due to the very nature of what makes you "high" with any drug that is chosen, brain chemistry is being modified outside the norm. You cannot with any amount of logic, say that there is NO health risk involved with this.

while i respect your opinion ......at this time that is all you have provided? is an un-substantiated opinion. whether or not i agree with your suppositions....without evidentry data to back your position its a moot point. Do you have any SUBSTANTIATED..............conclusive PROOF to show thte Health risks involved? how about the same to prove that chemical change is occurring in the brain and how permanent or long term is this effect?


There is no conspiracy by the government to hold down the "people" by illegalizing pot. It isn't some attempt at stopping you from broadening your mind.
your correct it isnt a Conspiracy.............its a Proven Document set of facts that start as far back as 1935 and proliferate through now I have the supported evidentry proof to show concerning this issue.Marijuana was made illegal By Financiers and politicians to eliminate the HEMP market.....it wasnt done because marijuana was dangerous.your simply WRONG here......marijuana was used as the scapegoat that helped to set the stage for the elimination of an entire industry...men very well known were involved in the Dupont Hearst Anslinger to name a few

read this

http://jackherer.com/chapter04.html

then read the credits that support this information it is IMPECCABLE and Non-debatable ..there is and has been a conspiracy connected to this for over 60 years



Fact is medical logic shows there is a definite danger, more mental than physical, I'd say.


thanks for your OPINION again ill ask .........Do you have ANY conclusive documented evidence to support this? or are we again just talking and dealing in opinions? Just curious as you clearly stated "Id say"



The ultimate problem is, however, the manner in which america attempts to avert these problems that do occur, we criminalize things instead of offering treatment. This is the big issue. This being said, not all who smoked pot are addicts. A large number are.

A large Number are...............where may i ask have you deriven this notion? Is there any evidentry data to support this claim? you have brough up many points in this thread .But none of them are substantiated or proven claims.most appear to be your opinion.which is FINE and i respect your opinion no matter how wrong or un-substantaied it may be ....but iask can you show us anything of proof ?


My point earlier was simply saying that any crime involving drug USE (robbery while on methamphetamine, etc) should carry the same prison sentance with inclusive inpatient treatment of the addiction. In other charges with purely a drug use relation, such as possession, should only carry diversions as the 'punishment', not jail.
marijuana should be legal as it is in holland


Addiction is NOT drug centric, and this thread by its very title, misses the point. DRUGS should not be criminal, they should be illegal yes, but not criminal. They should all infer treatment when instigating to crime.
while i respect your opinion....i completly disagree with you ...first of all there needs to be a seperation of what is constituted as "Drugs"... As right now marijuana, is in the same federal classification as Heroin!!!!
We need to seperate soft, and hard drugs. Then, and only then, can you move forward..By keeping marijuana Illegal, you are proliferating crime, gang activity, and government corruption.Prohibition doesnt work, we already know that .yet here we are
Addiction is a primary, chronic, neurobiologic disease, with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations. It is characterized by behaviors that include one or more of the following: impaired control over drug use, compulsive use, continued use despite harm, and craving.
Im sorry but you have yet to demonstrate,that there even is such a know thing as Marijuana addiction? you have provided us nothing to prove that this even exists .as i am well aware there "CAN" be physcological addiction tendencies.....but they are NOT permanent and are Not Physical..generally anyone that demonstrates a "addictive personality" MAY become Phsycologically "addicted" to marijuana.....yet there is NO detox period no physical addiction issues this tmporary situation that MAY occur in SOME cases generall subsides within a month of stopping the activities.....


When they say despite harm, they don't mean that you do it even though you know it MAY bring damages later in life, but rather you're experiencing damage related to it (including committing crimes under the instigation of the drug, continued use even though health decay is occurring, and so on. )
you are referring to "drugs" as whole? you must be...as marijuana users are Non-violent and do not commit crimes in order to feed theyre habits.the physical addictive pull is sabsent with a marijuana user where as a Crack,heroin,or cocaine user.HAS to have his fix or suffer physical issues associated with it

Society is so confused on the subject matter it seems,

drugs do not cause addictions, addiction predisposition does, drugs are just one thing you an end up addicted to when you have the addictive predisposition. Society seems to think criminalizing the use of drugs in anyway will help, that's just nuts.

well here in your last paragraph we are in agreement as you have concurred what isaid above about addictive personality traits........criminalizing and keeping soft drugs illegal is a herm to our society for the reasons i stated above

[palerider]

This is the last time ill talk to you on this because you are a LIAR.....and have been caught as such. Do you really think i was stupid enough to say hey Jack did you get any correspondence from a guy named palerider?

only you could be that simple in the head. ohhhh yess more insults!!! Again I am in the drivers seat you have nothing but insults and now LIES

your a LIAR .....plain and simple buddy you LIED and were caught...............

have a nice day Mr Liar rider

Still waiting for you to prove a lie. Is the proof forthcoming, or are you still just talking out of your ass?

One of us was caught in a lie and it was you and you weren't man enough to admit that you were caught.

[vyo476]

Still waiting for you to prove a lie. Is the proof forthcoming, or are you still just talking out of your ass?

One of us was caught in a lie and it was you and you weren't man enough to admit that you were caught.

Perhaps you should post a transcript of the email.

[PLC1]

Originally Posted by r0beph View Post
While I'm on the legalize side of this argument, I must say there are inherent health risks to inhaling ANY burning substance. I mean come on. If not all burning materials didn't cause health problems we'd make houses out of those materials. That way they don't die of smoke inhalation. This is just a given, denying this is simply illogical.

Excuse me? I seem to be having an issue with what you wrote here? Are you trying to tell me my house is Non-Combustible? wood,shingles,tiles,siding, ?

No, Roker the toker (You don't mind if we call you that, do you? It seems to fit)

What rObeph posted was that inhaling smoke, any smoke, is bad for the body, and that, if we could build houses out of material that made smoke that could be safely inhaled, it would be a good idea.

Maybe houses could be made of bales of marijuana. After all, houses have been made from bales of straw, so it isn't such a far out idea. That way, if your theory that inhaling the smoke is harmless is correct, a burning house would pose no threat from smoke inhalation.

Capisch?

[USMC the Almighty]

Interesting recent, article regarding pot triggering temporary psychotic symptoms:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269340,00.html

[Rokerijdude11]

Interesting Article indeed !!Not very conclusive in nature is it? No hard, factual ,evidence in this article im afaraid...And incidentally, the test subjects took pharmacuetical drugs, CONTAINING THC ,or a mimicked version..... like found in the failed drug marinol.
So they werent smoking pot at all in this study!! therefore it can in no way be compared to such
===========================================
LONDON — New findings on marijuana's damaging effect on the brain show the drug triggers temporary psychotic symptoms in some people, including hallucinations and paranoid delusions, doctors say.

British doctors took brain scans of 15 healthy volunteers given small doses of two of the active ingredients of cannabis, as well as a placebo.
They gave small doses of active ingredients ....what this tells me is that the test subjects werent smoking pot at all instead they were testingPharmacuetical Drugs that have the ingredients contained within them.............my guess is that these drugs are being provided by a company called G.W. Pharmacueticals out of england This is NOT the same as smoking some pot .....these are concentrated amounts being developed for use in medicinal paitients
One compound, cannabidiol, or CBD, made people more relaxed. But even small doses of another component, tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, produced temporary psychotic symptoms in people, including hallucinations and paranoid delusions, doctors said.


In concentrated form, Thc is VERY powerful just like the Ice water hasj, I told you all about, 90-95 % pure thc..... the strongest derivative of marijauana there is outside of these new drugs being feild tested By G.W pharmacueticals....THC is the part of pot that gets you "High" it stands to then reason that these temporary symptoms exist they are the "high" some people react differently than others while high


The results, to be presented at an international mental health conference in London on Tuesday and Wednesday, provides physical evidence of the drug's damaging influence on the human brain.

"We've long suspected that cannabis is linked to psychoses, but we have never before had scans to show how the mechanism works," said Dr. Philip McGuire, a professor of psychiatry at King's College, London.

In analyzing MRI scans of the study's subjects, McGuire and his colleagues found that THC interfered with activity in the inferior frontal cortex, a region of the brain associated with paranoia.

THC is switching off that regulator," McGuire said, effectively unleashing the paranoia usually kept under control by the frontal cortex.
so what we have here is a report that say while a user is high, they have temporary symptoms of what could be considered phsycosis, with an apprent Physical link, as to why when some people get high, they get really paranoid.....Yes its interesting that they have found the key that opens paranoias door........The problem is these effects ONLY occur in SOME people...! NOT all people, so it isnt conclusive proof that if you smoke pot, youll get paranoid .....but it demonstrates a physical trigger that means YOU COULD become paranoid.


In another study being presented at the conference, a two-day gathering of mental health experts discussing the connections between cannabis and mental health, scientists found that marijuana worsens psychotic symptoms of schizophrenics.


well im no doctor...But I dont need to be to understand that getting people that suffer from schizophrenea high, isnt such a hot Idea...for obvious reasons .....so this dosent surprise me in the least bit...I dont advocate that smokin is for every person.a person suffering depression, or schizophrenea is going to be far more succeptible to the thc effects


Doctors at Yale University in the U.S. tested the impact of THC on 150 healthy volunteers and 13 people with stable schizophrenia. Nearly half of the healthy subjects experienced psychotic symptoms when given the drug.


Im interested in what these so-called psychotic symptoms actually were....what this tells me is half of the subjects got stoned......and thats why some of smoke it isnt it? to get stoned?

While the doctors expected to see marijuana improve the conditions of their schizophrenic subjects — since their patients reported that the drug calmed them — they found that the reverse was true.

"I was surprised by the results," said Dr. Deepak Cyril D'Souza, an associate professor of psychiatry at Yale University's School of Medicine. "In practice, we found that cannabis is very bad for people with schizophrenia," he said.

While D'Souza had intended to study marijuana's impact on schizophrenics in more patients, the study was stopped prematurely because the impact was so pronounced that it would have been unethical to test it on more people with schizophrenia.

"One of the great puzzles is why people with schizophrenia keep taking the stuff when it makes the paranoia worse," said Dr. Robin Murray, a professor of psychiatry at King's College.

Experts theorized that schizophrenics may mistakenly judge the drug's pleasurable effects to outweigh any negatives.
actually none of this surprises me ...
Understanding how marijuana affects the brain may ultimately lead experts to a better understanding of mental health in general.

"We don't know the basis of paranoia or anxiety," said McGuire.

"It is possible that we could use cannabis in controlled studies to understand psychoses better," he said. McGuire theorized that could one day lead to specific drugs targeting the responsible regions of the brain.


Possible theory

[Rokerijdude11]

No, Roker the toker (You don't mind if we call you that, do you? It seems to fit)

What rObeph posted was that inhaling smoke, any smoke, is bad for the body, and that, if we could build houses out of material that made smoke that could be safely inhaled, it would be a good idea.

Maybe houses could be made of bales of marijuana. After all, houses have been made from bales of straw, so it isn't such a far out idea. That way, if your theory that inhaling the smoke is harmless is correct, a burning house would pose no threat from smoke inhalation.

Capisch?

and so i said further in the post
yes ill agree inhaling smoke is a possible problem and may have complications over a long period......I just watched a report last night on the news about the quality of air in my vehicle during my morning and afternoon commutes

the levels of toxicity are ALARMING and DANGEROUS it was said up to 20 fold of ciggarette smoke ...........based on this information.Driving my auto to work is far far more toxic to my body than smoking pot

also there are new methods of smoking that eliminate the un-wanted carcinogens one of these is Vapourization.the other is the manufacturing of what is known as Ice water hasj or Bubble hasj.which eliminates 95 percent or more of the plant from the equation

vapourizing does Not BURN anythig never producing a flame.i prefer the Ice Hasj Myself and its about all i smoke these days it consists of Trichomes full of THC .theses are Microscopic "bubble" that are on the plant they are seperated from the plant material by freezing them and breaking them off


what is left is 80-97% pure THC no clorophyl no plant material.....minimal smoke as it vapourizes the sacs filled with THC...............so there are methods currently being used to alleviate the harmful aspects of inhaling smoke

pretty much concurring that inhaling smoke is harful to us

[r0beph]

and so i said further in the post


pretty much concurring that inhaling smoke is harful to us


With the user name Rokerij, dutch for a coffee shop, I dont' think you'd be very receptive to any idea that the drug in dangerous. The fact is ANYTHING that effects the neurochemical balance of the brain has a very high chance of causing unhealthy effects. The long term effects of marijuana are quite apparent in most people who've heavily smoked for a good amount of time. Memory problems, slower cognitive response, and others with continued use. Withdrawal from marijuana is also pretty well documented, depression, often severe, is prevalent. Now don't get me wrong, marijuana is not heroin, it's definitely not a "danger" per life threatening, the addictive properties are not enough to instigate criminal activities to fund the habit. That being said, it is a very far cry from "safe." I'd put it on par with cigarettes as to health risks. Cigarettes by the fact they're used more often than marijuana, has more associated physical health risk. Marijuana however is just as dangerous due to the neurological aspect of introducing these chemicals that effect the brain chemistry.

The report you quoted in your previous post shows a clear unpredictability vector to the drug. Around 50% have adverse effects w/ possible psychotic reactions...But hey you're trying to show reasons for legalizing this drug...What if 50% of people who smoked cigarettes had a 50% chance of having an adverse psychological response? There'd be a lot tighter regulation I ASSURE you. Which is why I say, decriminalize, use treatment for abuse for anyone committing a crime instigated by drugs or violating parole/probation for drug use. We currently live in a society where addictions are considered a matter of choice, YOU made the choice to do the drug, and became addicted, it's illegal because we don't want you to be able to make that choice. The problem is, that is NOT how it works. Addiction is neurophysiological, so criminalization of someone with a mental heterogeneity, will fail. The war on drugs will thus fail. I'm in NO way for the legalization of drugs so they can be used, but rather so those who are addicted can be treated. In this comes the plus side for those who are not addicted, but casual users, THEY can do it without problems and thus they require no diversion. It's win win for all.

[Rokerijdude11]

With the user name Rokerij, dutch for a coffee shop, I dont' think you'd be very receptive to any idea that the drug in dangerous.
gee you must have went into the Username thread huh? I told you all, where my Nick came from...I dont hide it, or the fact that ive smoked pot longer than some of you have breathed air........Im not ashamed,nor am I Hiding who, and what I am?

The fact is ANYTHING that effects the neurochemical balance of the brain has a very high chance of causing unhealthy effects.


It has a "CHANCE"???..........hardly conclusive in nature is it? No sir it isnt. At this point the dangers you continue to extol, must be originating in your opinion center? As you have yet to provide any conclusive PROOF,to support these opinions your sharing.....



The long term effects of marijuana are quite apparent in most people who've heavily smoked for a good amount of time. Memory problems, slower cognitive response, and others with continued use.

Tis is simply Not True.. first of All Im a person who has smoked daily for 30+ years........I have no memory problems...........certainly do not have slower response....this is a phallacy...perhaps while Stoned, one may experience temporary memory loss, and slower reaction times... [/i] thats because the user is STONED, the desired effect from smoking the plant? There is NO documented medical proof, to support your opinion.......unless of course you meant to say ...while stoned, people experience those issues?..if not please, please ,do provide us with documented,, proven medical evidence, to support the claim


Withdrawal from marijuana is also pretty well documented, depression, often severe, is prevalent. Now don't get me wrong, marijuana is not heroin, it's definitely not a "danger" per life threatening,

lets be clear here..... there are NO PHYSICAL WITHDRAWL symptoms, from stopping smoking weed!!! Thats another Un-Proven Opinion. Do you have the supporting documentation, for this opinion? we seem to be purely dealing in persoanal opinions, which is Fine and i respect your opinions, they just are largely inaccurate, and Un-supported by medical evidence....I have known literally
Hundreds of users, who have had to stop smoking, for whatever reasons... Basically none of them, exhibited what you describe here?.........

On top of that, i have quit for periods of time longer than a month, on 6, or seven, occaisions? No depression here? And i quit for 4 yrs, while i was in the Navy, again No ill effects .....and BTW i smoked for 6 yrs before going into the navy.......yet i was in the upper 10 percentile in my school, and i worked on multi million dollar aircraft daily...of course i didnt smoke pot while enlisted


the addictive properties are not enough to instigate criminal activities to fund the habit. That being said, it is a very far cry from "safe." I'd put it on par with cigarettes as to health risks. Cigarettes by the fact they're used more often than marijuana, has more associated physical health risk. Marijuana however is just as dangerous due to the neurological aspect of introducing these chemicals that effect the brain chemistry.

you continue to bring this point up. Yet I wonder why it is, you have been unwilling to support this theory of yours, with hard facts? My guess is thats because we are dealing in opinion, rather than fact? I am still awaiting Conclusive, HARD, evidence to support your claims?As i stated 30+ years, and NONE, of the items you refer to has affected either myself, or my large group of smoking friends.........many of whom have also been smoking 30+ years????


The report you quoted in your previous post shows a clear unpredictability vector to the drug. Around 50% have adverse effects w/ possible psychotic reactions...But hey you're trying to show reasons for legalizing this drug...What if 50% of people who smoked cigarettes had a 50% chance of having an adverse psychological response?
[color=red]Well first of all, I Quoted Myself in my last thread, that was not an article?......you are referring to someone else, who posted an article i refuted. And ill refute this point with you now also .Re-Read the report. It is NOT CONCLUSIVE, HARD evidence, for one. and Secondly and more importantly.... the test subjects were not simply "smoking some pot" they were being administered Pharmacuetical drugs, containing, or mimicking, THC, and Cannabanoids..this is a large difference from simply smoking pot !!! Also the article FAILS to tell you, HOW the drugs were made, as well as what percentages of thc were in the "doses" administered?..These drugs are part of a trial being conducted for marinol replacement drugs.......As marinol was a huge failure.....they are trying to develop pills that will completly eradicate the medicinal growing, and use of marijauana....


Why? for the reason it was originally outlawed in 1937, for PROFIT.....They CLAIMED that 50% had Psycological reactions..of course they did !!! they got Stoned???they were administered doses of THC, in a pill form, or perhaps they used the lozenges, or spray, that GW pharmecueticals is currently testing in England.......Follow the Money .......not the hype..I also find it interesting, that they seem to have convieniently skipped over descirptions of the reactions !!! very telling indeed



There'd be a lot tighter regulation I ASSURE you. Which is why I say, decriminalize, use treatment for abuse for anyone committing a crime instigated by drugs or violating parole/probation for drug use. We currently live in a society where addictions are considered a matter of choice, YOU made the choice to do the drug, and became addicted, it's illegal because we don't want you to be able to make that choice. The problem is, that is NOT how it works. Addiction is neurophysiological, so criminalization of someone with a mental heterogeneity, will fail.


[color=red] While i respect your opinions, you seem to me at this point to be blindly parroting, what has been said by others? You have yet to produce and conclusive, HARD facts, to support this "Addiction" theory of yours and others?
Marijauana is no more addictive than Coffee. It has the PROPENSITY, to POSSIBLY, become PSYCOLOGICALLY addictive, in SOME people.That is HARDLY conclusive proof that the use of it is Dangerous....it certainly dosent support that idea, that if you use marijuana youll become psycotic, and depressed ,when you use it, and try to stop?

The article that i refuted,FAILED to prove the burden ....it was also much opinion, and theory, as was stated in the article. I will gladly paruse, whatever youd like to present on this issue, in the way of Hard evidence. Your welcome your opinions.But i have yet to see any hard evidence?


The war on drugs will thus fail. I'm in NO way for the legalization of drugs so they can be used, but rather so those who are addicted can be treated. In this comes the plus side for those who are not addicted, but casual users, THEY can do it without problems and thus they require no diversion. It's win win for all.

Prohibition dosent work....Hemp and Marijuana were ILLEGALLY prohibited By a group of wealthy powerful men in America in 1937. It was done purely to ELIMINATE THE HEMP INDUSTRY. To pave the way for REPLACEMENT industires which made all involved WILDLY RICH

The Dutch Drug Model works VERY VERY well... and we could largely benefit, from adopting a similar stance.By keeping Marijuana, and Hemp, illegal. You are simply proliferating, Crime, Gang activity, and underground profit

[vyo476]

Roker, I think that there's a basic misunderstanding going on here. It has to do with the language used in many of our posts.

We talk a lot about "possible" effects of marijuana usage. That does not mean that the scientists haven't decided yet whether or not marijuana causes those things; it means that they have seen that it does, but not all the time. Psychotropic substances can be very unpredictable. Sometimes the drug will have that affect...and sometimes it won't. There are no absolutes when it comes to this thing. Not everyone even gets stoned in quite the same way unless I'm very much mistaken.

So in conclusion, when we talk about "possible" side effects of marijuana usage, we're talking about things that have been proven to happen...but not all the time. There isn't anything "inconclusive" about that because that is as conclusive as it is possible to be on the subject.

[r0beph]

Prohibition dosent work....Hemp and Marijuana were ILLEGALLY prohibited By a group of wealthy powerful men in America in 1937. It was done purely to ELIMINATE THE HEMP INDUSTRY. To pave the way for REPLACEMENT industires which made all involved WILDLY RICH

The Dutch Drug Model works VERY VERY well... and we could largely benefit, from adopting a similar stance.By keeping Marijuana, and Hemp, illegal. You are simply proliferating, Crime, Gang activity, and underground profit

Did you read anything I said? The crime related to marijuana is rather small in comparison to the harder drugs, cocaine/heroin/methamphetamine/etc, I'd say it's damn near negligible. I don't like prohibition, but I don't think it should be available en masse to the public. But decriminalizing it so the end user doesn't have an associated imprisonment penalty is a wonderful idea. Reread my post, and don't reply with an obligatory response that assumes I don't agree with you somewhat. But I must state; You cannot use the crime/gang/violence ticket as a reason to legalize it completely since that would then be precedent for legalizing all drugs, since that's the consequence for their prohibition. You can't apply one rule to one thing and not to the others in a similar family. I know the whole dupont vs. hemp ordeal. North Dakota will have the first state-licensed private industrial hemp farmer pretty soon. Still trying to get the DEA out of their hair. Rokerj, you really need to learn to try to not be so far reaching. Extremes tend to fall short of how things will turn out, there's reasons for this. The further you move from a median the more extraneous variables you tend to ignore which causes the extreme to fall shy of adequate. Right now we're flung to far to the criminalization of drugs, to reverse this to complete legalization would bring problems just as bad as we have now, just in the other direction. Having the right mix is the way to go. A chocolate shake is pretty good when it's mixed right, but it sucks just the same if the syrup is all on the bottom, or floating on the type either way.

[Rokerijdude11]

what is that? yes i see the wording being used by the experts being quoted .many of you have been supplying this as EVIDENCE that Marijuana IS harmful when smoked


Not that it COULD BE harmful when smoked.see the difference? It is inconclusive evidence as it has no CONCRETE basis they say SOME people MAY have this happen to them? that dosent support proof of anything other than POSSIBLY IN SOME CASES people may be affected a certain way?



you say Psycotropic subtances ar unpredictable..........again Inconclusive based on these theories......maybe we should outlaw Bannanas because in SOME Cases it cause anxiety in the person eating it...or perhaps we should outlaw Energy Drinks because in SOME test cases it triggers paranoia, or outlaw ciggarettes because in some people it causes addiction and possible cancer

or maybe we outlaw cheese because in some cases it causes Morbid obesity when eaten?

these are the types of arguments you are purporting as reasons that Marijuana IS dangerous

not as reasons why it MAY be dangerous

I am Intimatly aware of the semantics in word usage the Federal government has been playing the word game since 1937............

very very few reports hold any conclusive documented evidence to support theyre claims

because something POSSIBLY may be HARMFUL to SOME people IN SOME circumstance is hardly conclusive enough evidence to suggest that it IS HARMFUL IF USED

[r0beph]

what is that? yes i see the wording being used by the experts being quoted .many of you have been supplying this as EVIDENCE that Marijuana IS harmful when smoked


Not that it COULD BE harmful when smoked.see the difference? It is inconclusive evidence as it has no CONCRETE basis they say SOME people MAY have this happen to them? that dosent support proof of anything other than POSSIBLY IN SOME CASES people may be affected a certain way?



you say Psycotropic subtances ar unpredictable..........again Inconclusive based on these theories......maybe we should outlaw Bannanas because in SOME Cases it cause anxiety in the person eating it...or perhaps we should outlaw Energy Drinks because in SOME test cases it triggers paranoia, or outlaw ciggarettes because in some people it causes addiction and possible cancer

or maybe we outlaw cheese because in some cases it causes Morbid obesity when eaten?

these are the types of arguments you are purporting as reasons that Marijuana IS dangerous

not as reasons why it MAY be dangerous

I am Intimatly aware of the semantics in word usage the Federal government has been playing the word game since 1937............

very very few reports hold any conclusive documented evidence to support theyre claims

because something POSSIBLY may be HARMFUL to SOME people IN SOME circumstance is hardly conclusive enough evidence to suggest that it IS HARMFUL IF USED

Again, if 50% of cigarette smokers exhibited psychotic reactions, you think it would be considered "safe" in the sense that we consider them "safe" now, lung problems aside. The fact is any time you have a large number of users who exhibit a negative side effect then it IS harmful, to them, while directly not harmful to the others. However there is plenty of evidence showing long term use as effecting the mentality of the user. Depression is VERY common with heavy long term use. Cognitive function decrease/slowing is shown in long term heavy use. Heavy smoking WILL end with physiological disorders as well, COPD, Emphysema, et al. Plus again, I'm not saying they should be illegal. I think we need a serious reform on the way we handle drug cases. It should be treated medically NOT criminally. Only the crimes committed with drug instigation should include imprisonment, with an inclusive treatment for the addiction that led to it. (You MUST be addicted to commit a crime FOR drugs, if you're not addicted, you wouldn't) Just the same, again, if you violate parole/probation for drug use, treatment, not a true violation of the parole/probation that imprisons you.

[vyo476]

what is that? yes i see the wording being used by the experts being quoted .many of you have been supplying this as EVIDENCE that Marijuana IS harmful when smoked


Not that it COULD BE harmful when smoked.see the difference? It is inconclusive evidence as it has no CONCRETE basis they say SOME people MAY have this happen to them? that dosent support proof of anything other than POSSIBLY IN SOME CASES people may be affected a certain way?



you say Psycotropic subtances ar unpredictable..........again Inconclusive based on these theories......maybe we should outlaw Bannanas because in SOME Cases it cause anxiety in the person eating it...or perhaps we should outlaw Energy Drinks because in SOME test cases it triggers paranoia, or outlaw ciggarettes because in some people it causes addiction and possible cancer

or maybe we outlaw cheese because in some cases it causes Morbid obesity when eaten?

these are the types of arguments you are purporting as reasons that Marijuana IS dangerous

not as reasons why it MAY be dangerous

I am Intimatly aware of the semantics in word usage the Federal government has been playing the word game since 1937............

very very few reports hold any conclusive documented evidence to support theyre claims

because something POSSIBLY may be HARMFUL to SOME people IN SOME circumstance is hardly conclusive enough evidence to suggest that it IS HARMFUL IF USED

All this time I've been saying that marijuana has harmful properties. An uncertain effect is still a harmful property.

Please note that I am not in favor of continued marijuana prohibition. Just because I'm not fond of the stuff doesn't mean that I think it should be against the law.

[Rokerijdude11]

Did you read anything I said? The crime related to marijuana is rather small in comparison to the harder drugs, cocaine/heroin/methamphetamine/etc, I'd say it's damn near negligible. I don't like prohibition, but I don't think it should be available en masse to the public.




I read EVEYTHING you said I CLEARLY RESPONDED TO IT ALL AS WELL.....yes i see where you said you felt crime was smaller than Heroin users? so what your very next sentance suggests that we continue to proliferate the PROHIBITION of these plants by KEEPING THEM ILLEGAL did you not?......you just said it again above that YOU FEEL that it should be KEPT from the general Public......Prohibition....did you read ANY of what I wrote is the question here? YOU need to re-read as i was CLEAR in my points friend

But decriminalizing it so the end user doesn't have an associated imprisonment penalty is a wonderful idea. Reread my post, and don't reply with an obligatory response that assumes I don't agree with you somewhat. But I must state;
yes i see where you partially agree with me, but you are half, and half, and that just isnt enough in this case? Decriminalizing and legalizing are two different Animals


You cannot use the crime/gang/violence ticket as a reason to legalize it completely since that would then be precedent for legalizing all drugs, since that's the consequence for their prohibition. You can't apply one rule to one thing and not to the others in a similar family. I know the whole dupont vs. hemp ordeal.
By legalizing Hemp ,Marijuana, Mushrooms,
hashish and seperating Hard drugs from soft drugs like the Dutch you can achieve a fair sytem ....soft Drugs should be legal and regulated,it removes the criminal element from the problem .as we all know it is Cartels,Motorcycle gangs, and street level gangs who currently control and profit from the illegal drug trade in this country.by eliminating the use of resources on soft drugs it will allow authorities to address the Hard drugs in a more concentrated manner...........Heroin and Cocaine, and Crack.ice should Not be in the soft drug category
as they ARE CONCLUSIVELY dangerous and addictive
they need to be somehow accounted for.perhaps prohibition does not work there either but the Dutch Drug Policy utilizes this stance and it works

North Dakota will have the first state-licensed private industrial hemp farmer pretty soon. Still trying to get the DEA out of their hair.

Its about time hemp was put back to use in this country it has far too many positives to ignore


Rokerj, you really need to learn to try to not be so far reaching. Extremes tend to fall short of how things will turn out, there's reasons for this. The further you move from a median the more extraneous variables you tend to ignore which causes the extreme to fall shy of adequate.

I base my view on life experiences as well as having been in and around the Dutch Drug Policy for many many years........Im not that extreme or far from you actually we just disagree on decrminalization vs, legalization and the seperation of soft drugs from hard drugs other than that we seem to have similar beliefs?

Right now we're flung to far to the criminalization of drugs, to reverse this to complete legalization would bring problems just as bad as we have now, just in the other direction. Having the right mix is the way to go. A chocolate shake is pretty good when it's mixed right, but it sucks just the same if the syrup is all on the bottom, or floating on the type either way.
See as i say this is our difference of opinion here.I do NOT believe legalization would bring problems just as bad as we have now.that has not been demonstrated in Holland.quite the opposite has occurred actually...having the right mix is declassifying marijuana as a schdule A narcotic.sepration of soft and hard drugs and legalization with limitations of the soft drugs.similar to beer wine and liqour

[Rokerijdude11]

All this time I've been saying that marijuana has harmful properties. An uncertain effect is still a harmful property.

Please note that I am not in favor of continued marijuana prohibition. Just because I'm not fond of the stuff doesn't mean that I think it should be against the law.

I understand your view point and respect it as yours....
Im sorry but at this point i havent seen any of the so -called harmful properties ..I have seen that the possibility of some things occuring is there....just havent seen the defenitive proof to substantiate the harful properties


This is MY opinion

hopefully you can understand and respect it as i have yours thanks for posting

[r0beph]

Your opinion ignores raw data. Ok let's break our respective arguments down into their bases.

My case;
If [A] occurs in half of test subjects when [B] is administered. And [A] is harmful, then [B] must be harmful.

Your case;
If [A] occurs in half of test subjects when [B] is administered. And [A] is harmful, then there is no evidence that [B] is harmful.

I assert that my case is correct since even though 50% experience these harmful effects and these effects are caused by [B] it's evident that [B] instigates harmful effects, thus by this definition, [B] is harmful.

You can have an opinion, but your opinion is not really an opinion, you're asserting fact that belies the truth.

[Rokerijdude11]

Again, if 50% of cigarette smokers exhibited psychotic reactions, you think it would be considered "safe" in the sense that we consider them "safe" now, lung problems aside.

How do we know that 50% of ciggarette smokers, DONT exhibit psycotic reactions while smoking? Im not so sure a study of that nature has ever occurred? Nobody to this day has attempted, to prohibit tobacco.
which DOES have HARD ,CONCLUSIVE ,evidence that it is HARMFUL to you, and WILL CAUSE Eventual Death....Funny they allow tobbacco to be sold, when it is PROVEN, and DOCUMENTED, to be a severe health risk,Not only to the smokers but to all humans and animals near smokers as second hand cig smoke is also PROVEN by HARD FACTS to be HARMFUL to people.....

Yet marijuana which has the POSSIBILTY, to potentially harm, SOME people, sometimes ..........is Outlawed and Prohibited !!!
Tobacco DOES IN FACT, have Harmful chemicals in it ..and is a KNOWN carcinogen,there are no chemicals in marijuana? other than the THC ???which truly isnt a chemical its a natural occurring by-product of the female plant

Marijuana is only a SUSPECTED carcinogen, it makes no sense to even compare the two? Im going to look to see if a study on psychosis and tobacco has ever been done .My gut says No, it hasnt because nobody is trying to perpetuate Prohibition of tobacco


The fact is any time you have a large number of users who exhibit a negative side effect then it IS harmful, to them, while directly not harmful to the others. However there is plenty of evidence showing long term use as effecting the mentality of the user.

Depression is VERY common with heavy long term use. Cognitive function decrease/slowing is shown in long term heavy use. Heavy smoking WILL end with physiological disorders as well, COPD, Emphysema, et al.


again I must ask of you, to please provide us here, with Conclusive Proof of these allegations. you continue to bring these points up,i have politely asked you to provide us documented ,substantiated proof ,to support these claims.. You continue to not bring them forth.so what we have here, is your Un-substantiated opinion...which is fine, but its not the end all of the conversation.... Its not proof, its how you percieve it to be.I maintain that there is NO conclusive hard facts, to support these claims.... I will again await the HARD facts if you have them? and saying that these effects are possible in smoe cases isnt enough to purport evidence im afraid
Plus again, I'm not saying they should be illegal. I think we need a serious reform on the way we handle drug cases. It should be treated medically NOT criminally. Only the crimes committed with drug instigation should include imprisonment, with an inclusive treatment for the addiction that led to it. (You MUST be addicted to commit a crime FOR drugs, if you're not addicted, you wouldn't) Just the same, again, if you violate parole/probation for drug use, treatment, not a true violation of the parole/probation that imprisons you.

Being that matijuana and hashish are not proven to be addictive....the above paragraph in my opinion Does Not apply in our conversation as i know of NOBODY who has been addicted to marijuana and certainly nobody that would commit a crime to go get more marijuana

[r0beph]

Being that matijuana and hashish are not proven to be addictive....the above paragraph in my opinion Does Not apply in our conversation as i know of NOBODY who has been addicted to marijuana and certainly nobody that would commit a crime to go get more marijuana

From NIDA;

Addictive Potential

Long-term marijuana abuse can lead to addiction for some people; that is, they abuse the drug compulsively even though it interferes with family, school, work, and recreational activities. Drug craving and withdrawal symptoms can make it hard for long-term marijuana smokers to stop abusing the drug. People trying to quit report irritability, sleeplessness, and anxiety[32]. They also display increased aggression on psychological tests, peaking approximately one week after the last use of the drug[33].

32 Kouri EM, Pope HG, Lukas SE. Changes in aggressive behavior during withdrawal from long-term marijuana use. Psychopharmacology 143(3):302–308, 1999.

33 Haney M, Ward AS, Comer SD, et al. Abstinence symptoms following smoked marijuana in humans. Psychopharmacology 141(4):395–404, 1999.

[Rokerijdude11]

Your opinion ignores raw data. Ok let's break our respective arguments down into their bases.

My case;
If [A] occurs in half of test subjects when is administered. And [A] is harmful, then [B] must be harmful.
[b] you have yet to provide hard factual data to support the 50% theory as i also stated the 50% in the article were not SMOKING pot...they were adminitered pills to mimick pot....quite the difference...as well what defenitions are we using for so-called psycosis? you say psycosis i say stoned?? nor have you provided any factual hard evidence that A is harmful? you have stated your opinions that you feel its harmful? but have yet to substantiate these claims??
Your case;
If [A] occurs in half of test subjects when is administered. And [A] is harmful, then there is no evidence that [B] is harmful.

I assert that my case is correct since even though 50% experience these harmful effects and these effects are caused by [B] it's evident that [B] instigates harmful effects, thus by this definition, [B] is harmful.

You can have an opinion, but your opinion is not really an opinion, you're asserting fact that belies the truth.
You havent provided any factual hard data to support your theory? the burden of proof is upon you as you state there is a harmful aspect here....yet you have been unable to successfully document or prove you theory......My theory and opinion as stated is based on 30+ years of actually smoking......20+ years of legalization activisim and ten years of work in the medicinal area of Mj....I base my opinions on facts and real life experience your opinions to this point are largely Un-substantiated therefore you have failed to meet the burden of proof? I respect your opinions whether or not i feel they are valid....when you can substantiate what your discussing perhaps we can get past this

if not your welcomed your opinion and as you stated yourself you are the one ASSERTING facts that are NON-factual.....[/color]

[Rokerijdude11]

From NIDA;

Addictive Potential

Long-term marijuana abuse can lead to addiction for some people;

You will notice the verbage in the above passage? IT clearly lacks hard fact......it clearly is a non defenitive statement it is a variable not a conclusive proof generating statement

If it was it would read something like this;

long-term marijuana Abuse Does lead to addiction in smokers

or long-term marijuana abuse is Documented as being addictive

or any other conclusive statements other than it may in some cases? how can anyone construe this to be evidentry proof?

that is, they abuse the drug compulsively even though it interferes with family, school, work, and recreational activities.

the same could be said about coffee, or gambling, or skydiving,




Drug craving and withdrawal symptoms can make it hard for long-term marijuana smokers to stop abusing the drug.




CONCLUSIVE HARD EVIDENCE would read something like this;

Drug Craving and withdrawl symptoms are Known to make it difficult for the long term marijuan user to quit

or

Drug craving and withdrawl symptoms is widely documented as making it hard for the the users to stop

Ill put My 30+ years of practical experience against this staement ANY TIME as i have had to quit on occaisons more than once it has never been Difficult ....you just stop smoking it? I experienced No depression no difficulty at all whatsoever eithe have my circle of friends and family

I will say for SOME they have experienced difficulty SLEEPING after quitting which generally last a few days hardly to be considered harmful or psycotic?




People trying to quit report irritability, sleeplessness, and anxiety[32].





as stated above I have actually seen sleeping be an issue ,albeit a TEMPORARY issue.many people who give up tobacco, or drinking beer, would be reported as describing the same symptoms..... again temporary symptoms which are Neither harmful, or psycotic in nature?


They also display increased aggression on psychological tests, peaking approximately one week after the last use of the drug[33].

I would be very interested to see these tests, to be able to refute the claims.... but ill allow them to stand as reported, until i have had that chance. Again what this last statement tells me, is that this also is a TEMPORARY situation, which peaks in a week, leading us to the only conclusion,that it subsides after that... or surely the feds would have included info to support otherwise....it also does not support any claims of being harmful or psycotic?...


32 Kouri EM, Pope HG, Lukas SE. Changes in aggressive behavior during withdrawal from long-term marijuana use. Psychopharmacology 143(3):302–308, 1999.

33 Haney M, Ward AS, Comer SD, et al. Abstinence symptoms following smoked marijuana in humans. Psychopharmacology 141(4):395–404, 1999.


Again with information, provided to us by the very people perpetuating Prohibition !!!! the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT !!!!!! had you read earlier on, i have already addressed these claims ,and for you I will again, in bold red above

[r0beph]

I have posted the info from NIDA above. footnotes if you care to hit the library and look at the data.

The burden of proof is well met. You've continually used the fact that "science says CAN cause, MAY cause, etc." as proof of there being no proof. This is incorrect. "It can cause [in some cases]," is a more definitive statement on the intent of the words "possible/can/may." The primary factor being that in studies ON humans these harmful effects HAVE occurred in prevalence. The study where people were given THC PO or if they smoked it, it's not really that different. The active agent exists in both manner of ingestion. It's metabolized the same way by the body. If THC causes psychosis in those tests, then THC ingested via smoking any form of the drug that contains THC will assert the same effects. The proof exists you just exhibit a rather high amount of cognitive bias that doesn't allow you see the evidence for what it is. This argument is boring me since you refuse to accept any data that is availible. You issue arguments when you feel the data can be pigeonholed, but if it cannot you tend to digress to a conspiracy theory about the data. You contend that NIDA is federally funded so any seemingly obvious facts are to not be believed due to the fact the government has a hand in it. Your constant chiding of the Coulds and Possiblys is tiring. If tests don't show 100% repeatable results every single time with every single subject, then it has to be "could," otherwise it would simply be bad science. I'm still trying to figure this anger thing out with you. You've got so much hostility. Where's that coming from.

[r0beph]

that is, they abuse the drug compulsively even though it interferes with family, school, work, and recreational activities.

the same could be said about coffee, or gambling, or skydiving,


Yes it could, and those can all be addictions. There is neurophysiology behind the addiction circuitry in addicts brains. You very well can be addicted to caffeine, to gambling, and to adrenaline. This is not disputed. Whatever you're body has grown accustomed to to stimulate the pleasure center that is pursuant to the addiction, is what you'll attempt to fulfill.


Drug craving and withdrawal symptoms can make it hard for long-term marijuana smokers to stop abusing the drug.

CONCLUSIVE HARD EVIDENCE would read something like this;

Drug Craving and withdrawl symptoms are Known to make it difficult for the long term marijuan user to quit

or

Drug craving and withdrawl symptoms is widely documented as making it hard for the the users to stop
~
~
ANY TIME as i have had to quit on occaisons more than once it has never been Difficult


Because YOU are not addicted. To address the first part of this quote; Addiction is not something that happens to everyone. I love an occasional dark brew, I'll even drink heavily if I'm at a club or bar, if I don't have to drive. But I rarely drink. I'm not addicted. I've not had a drink in quite a few months. However an alcoholic[Addict] would continue to drink chronically, he can stop for a while if the physical withdrawal point hasn't been reached with his alcoholism and he doesn't experience DTs and such, but he'll return to it. That is an addict. What I am to alcohol you are to pot. That is why the COULD BE is there. I know people who will readily ADMIT they're addicted to pot, who've checked into rehab voluntarily to help, because they couldn't stop. Sure they weren't robbing banks to buy a quarter sack. But they would still pursue getting high, even though they clearly realize they wish to stop. That is addiction. But that is anecdotal evidence and not very conclusive to an argument, but I'm submitting it nonetheless.

Tell me this, can say, cervical cancer be cured if caught early? A doctor would tell you quite frankly, it can likely be cured. Even though it's about a 99% success rate. There are NO absolutes when dealing with a populous of such varying physiologies, that's ridiculous to infer.

[Rokerijdude11]

I have posted the info from NIDA above. footnotes if you care to hit the library and look at the data.

The burden of proof is well met.


No it hasnt.......the NIDA report is ANYTHING but conclusive hard evidence Im sorry?

You've continually used the fact that "science says CAN cause, MAY cause, etc." as proof of there being no proof. This is incorrect. "It can cause [in some cases]," is a more definitive statement on the intent of the words "possible/can/may." The primary factor being that in studies ON humans these harmful effects HAVE occurred in prevalence.



Like i say if its conclusive, and They have PROVEN it... why the ambiguatory verbage? Why not seal it tight with definitive verbage, that spells it out as Evidentry ,conclusive data? like the federal Government ALWAYS does?
Because it isnt evidentry, or conclusive, it states that these possibilities Exist ...and at some point in time, somehwere, they may have actually happened...It does not support the claim, that it is a harmful substance, it supports the theory....... that IT MAY be a HARMFUL substance




The study where people were given THC PO or if they smoked it, it's not really that different. The active agent exists in both manner of ingestion. It's metabolized the same way by the body.


it does matter completly....the reasons for this are obvious .and as well, they convieniently skip ove,r what dosage was given....what was in the pill, other than THC . and the concentration levels of an ingested thc dosage are COMPLETLY different. As well anyone who has been at this as long as I have ,Knows the HUGE difference between eating marijuana, or marijauana based cookies ,cakes, etc is Entirely a different High, and entirely a different situation. Eating anything containing THC, is far MORE powerful on the Body ...Anyone who has eaten pot brownies, cookies, etc, or space cakes, made with hashish Knows they are far MORE potent, in the active High, and symptoms...,

so first of all by INGESTING this anonymous pill, which we know nothing about its dosage ,what else it may have contained etc,.......we already know the effects will be more powerfull than smoking several Joints, this is proven and documented....and as well I through personal experience, know this to be a fact

If THC causes psychosis in those tests, then THC ingested via smoking any form of the drug that contains THC will assert the same effects.

Not necessarily, as FAR MORE pot would need to be smoked, to get anywhere NEAR the same type of dosage, and even then, as i stated above smoking, and ingesting marijuana are COMPLETLY DIFFERENT.........Neither you, or NIDA, or anyone else has provided hard documented facts, on the so-called psycosis .....i say its what is known as being STONED....... not psycosis at all...,

i await the PROOF on this aspect as well ,
and am interested in wht the psycosis defenitions were, for the reported case? this information, as well as dosage are completly releveant, and convieniently left out of the report


The proof exists you just exhibit a rather high amount of cognitive bias that doesn't allow you see the evidence for what it is. This argument is boring me since you refuse to accept any data that is availible.


Not so boring as you just keep on posting...
and continue to ignore my repeated requests for something of a hard factual nature???so far you have YET to provide it...Not even the NIDA report is conclusive? why is that? because thy are not being honest thats why

You issue arguments when you feel the data can be pigeonholed, but if it cannot you tend to digress to a conspiracy theory about the data. You contend that NIDA is federally funded so any seemingly obvious facts are to not be believed due to the fact the government has a hand in it. Your constant chiding of the Coulds and Possiblys is tiring.

[color=red]NIDA hasnt met the burden of proof either???? the Federal Government is exactly why Marijuana is Prohibited they know the truth ....they are the ones who started the Lies in 1937 you seem to ignore the facts surrounding Prohibition of hemp and marijuana ...for if you understood the who and why ,you would understand the questionability of NIDA reprt


Not to mention The US FEDERAL GOVT will NOT ALLOW testing in this country, and havent for some years? how can they be so conclusive, when they dont allow it to be studied???


If tests don't show 100% repeatable results every single time with every single subject, then it has to be "could," otherwise it would simply be bad science. I'm still trying to figure this anger thing out with you. You've got so much hostility. Where's that coming from.
[color=red]
I have no Hostility in this thread? not in the last 4 pages? are you referring to another thread in another section? yes i believe you are.....when you have provided me with some HARD factual evidence that is actually suppoerted and written to show such then Ill concede if its reputable and documented ............

you can show me all the Erroneous Data you can find as i stated many times before Im a 30+ year testament ....that proves that these Inconclusive allegations are nothing more than that allegations .....

[vyo476]

Roker, what would constitute a "conclusive" argument in your book? What must it say for it be conclusive?

[r0beph]

Yeah exactly, if you give me the guidelines full spec of what you consider conclusive, maybe I'll fork over the cash to buy a journal article or two just to stymie this cascading thread, it's getting much to long.

And please, do be concise.

[Rokerijdude11]

Roker, what would constitute a "conclusive" argument in your book? What must it say for it be conclusive?

I gave examples of how it would read if it were conclusive

[Rokerijdude11]

Yeah exactly, if you give me the guidelines full spec of what you consider conclusive, maybe I'll fork over the cash to buy a journal article or two just to stymie this cascading thread, it's getting much to long.

And please, do be concise.
I have been concise

Conclusive,Hard,Facts

not ambigious possibilities..................documented hard line Proof...........

[vyo476]

I gave examples of how it would read if it were conclusive

No, you didn't. You took what was proven and rearranged the wording in such a way as to change the subject of the sentence. Instead of "marijuana may have (this) effect in some users" it became "marijuana has (this) effect in users", in which the words "always" and "all" are implied through everything else you had said, making the statement "marijuana always has (this) effect in all users."

Please repost how to make those statements more conclusive, as I obviously do not see how you did so.

[Rokerijdude11]

No, you didn't. You took what was proven and rearranged the wording in such a way as to change the subject of the sentence. Instead of "marijuana may have (this) effect in some users" it became "marijuana has (this) effect in users", in which the words "always" and "all" are implied through everything else you had said, making the statement "marijuana always has (this) effect in all users."

Please repost how to make those statements more conclusive, as I obviously do not see how you did so.

well then we have no further need to discuss this i was clear in what i wrote and meant you say you dont see it ok then...so be it

have a nice day

[vyo476]

well then we have no further need to discuss this i was clear in what i wrote and meant you say you dont see it ok then...so be it

have a nice day

If you were so clear about it then how come we're all asking for clarification? Are you so much better than me, r0beph, palerider, Dave, USMC, PLC1, and even 9sublime, who has taken your side throughout the better part of this thread until you started to go off the deep end lately? I mean, if you are, maybe you should be the one who chose "God" as a screen name, not that other guy.

[Rokerijdude11]

http://www.maps.org/media/fc021704_2.html



As the founder of a British Pharmaceutical company put it, if it weren't called Marijuana there would be an entire biotech business built around this plant. And that's just what is starting to happen (but not for the US drug industry or the patients these medicines might help).

One night in late September, Ethan Russo stood before a classroom packed with students on the University of Massachusetts' Amherst campus, and asked how many of them had been through the popular secondary-school program known as Drug Abuse Resistance Education, or DARE. Almost every hand in the audience went up. "Just as I thought," said Russo. "Well, we're going to hit that one head-on." He then cheerfully presented his version of what can only be described as a drug reeducation program.

Russo is a physician specializing in child neurology and one of the world's pioneering investigators into the therapeutic uses of pot. A slight, preternaturally good-humored man, Russo exhibited an outsized knowledge of his subject. Sticking strictly to the botanical name, Cannabis sativa , he noted that the plant's effects on the mind and body were first recorded by the ancient Assyrians in 2200 BC. These days, cannabis is used, mostly illegally, to relieve the nausea that accompanies chemotherapy, stimulate the appetites of AIDS sufferers, prevent blindness induced by glaucoma, suppress migraine headaches, and reduce the pain and muscle rigidity that accompanies multiple sclerosis.

Although nonprescription medications such as aspirin kill thousands of people every year, not a single death has ever been attributed to a cannabis overdose. The "therapeutic ratio" of marijuana is estimated to fall somewhere between 20,000 and 40,000--meaning it would take that many times a normal dose to kill you. If the drug is delivered as a pill or a spray (smoking just about anything is bad for you, after all), then Russo is unequivocal: "Cannabis is a safer medicine than almost all of the standard pharmaceuticals available today."

As he spoke, Russo clicked through a dazzling slide show: verdant fields of cannabis covering the foothills of Morocco's Rif Mountains; Thailand's marijuana plants on steroids, taller than a NBA center. But the most compelling slide was of a homely, quart-sized bottle labeled "Cannabis Tincture," which seemed to symbolize this country's inconsistent attitude toward medical marijuana. The United States has at times embraced the cannabis plant and its products: From the mid-19th century up until the mid-20th century, cannabis was a mainstream medicine, listed in the U.S. pharmacopoeia. The company that marketed the bottle of tincture was none other than Eli Lilly, the $11 billion behemoth that today is best known for another mood-altering drug, Prozac.

More recently, of course, the U.S. government has cast cannabis as a pariah drug. This past June, Karen Tandy, the first woman to head the Drug Enforcement Administration, declared that marijuana "has not been shown to have medical benefits."

Ethan Russo and a small group of trailblazing doctors, scientists, and businesspeople hope to prove her wrong. Russo recently signed on as a senior medical adviser to GW Pharmaceuticals, a British biotechnology company that has conducted clinical trials of cannabis-based medicines on people suffering from multiple sclerosis and chronic pain. In a memorandum to the House of Lords' committee on science and technology, GW reported that a vast major- ity of its patients have indicated "significant alleviation" of at least one symptom, including pain, spasticity, and bladder problems; in some cases, it said, the improvement "has been sufficient to transform lives."

This past May, GW inked a deal with the German pharmaceutical company Bayer Healthcare AG to market Sativex, a cannabis-laced oral spray that's used for treating severe neuropathic pain and multiple-sclerosis symptoms. Bayer, which agreed to market Sativex in the UK and Canada--and optioned rights for Europe--is betting that in the next few months, the first modern medicine made entirely of cannabis will pass muster with British regulators. GW estimates that the European market for Sativex could total $300 million to $400 million. "We're finding that cannabis medicines have enormous pharmacological capabilities and a unique capacity to attack, in a disease like MS, an entire range of symptoms," says Dr. Geoffrey Guy, GW's founder and chairman.

"If it wasn't called marijuana, by now there would have been an entire biotech industry built around this plant." GW's breakthroughs have put Guy in the vanguard of the aboveground marijuana economy, a handful of pharmaceutical entrepreneurs who are racing to build a legal market for cannabis medicines in countries that accept the drug's therapeutic potential (read: Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and most of western Europe). If Guy's bet pays off, GW just might become the Eli Lilly of medical marijuana.

[Rokerijdude11]

"Cruel Hoax" or Solid Science?

The push to develop plant-based and synthetic cannabinoid medicines has been building since the early 1990s, when researchers identified nerve receptors in the brain that are stimulated by marijuana's active ingredient, THC, as well as the natural body chemical that binds to those receptors. The discovery of an entirely new class of brain receptors and the neurotransmitters that act on them--the endocannabinoid system--proved to be an astounding development, opening a whole new area of therapeutics.

Investigators believe that the system plays a critical role in mediating pain, appetite, movement, and memory. The giants of the drug industry, including Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, and Schering-Plough, are now hard at work in the lab, attempting to cook up synthetic versions of the 61 cannabinoid compounds found in marijuana plants. These are complex molecules with 21 carbons unique to cannabis, of which THC is the best known. Big Pharma has high hopes for these synthetics for the treatment of obesity, smoking, cancer pain, migraines, and MS symptoms. But such efforts are still in the early stages of development.

Investigators believe that the system in the brain that is stimulated by marijuana also plays a critical role in mediating pain, appetite, movement, and memory. At the more controversial end of the aboveground marijuana economy, developers are using the plant itself instead of synthetic compounds. "At least in the near future, it seems extremely unlikely that one of these companies will come up with a single synthetic agent that's as widely applicable as a cannabis-based medicine," says Russo. GW is taking whole extracts from the marijuana plant and recombining them to produce drugs that treat specific ailments. This plant-based approach has enabled the company to develop and test Sativex in five years, at a price tag of about $60 million. It's a remarkable feat, considering that Big Pharma on average shells out $800 million on a new drug and can easily devote a decade or more to animal research and first-dose-in-man testing. GW did minimal animal testing, taking Sativex rapidly to controlled, double-blind human trials.

"Something like 400 million people a year take cannabis in one form or another, and yet there's never been a recorded fatality from it," says Guy.

But you won't find any commercial development of plant-based marijuana medicines being pursued in the United States. Andrea Barthwell, a deputy director in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy and President Bush's point person on medical marijuana, says cannabis medicines aren't compatible with modern science. They do not constitute "a serious line of research," she says.

"The people who are advancing marijuana as a medicine are perpetuating a cruel hoax that exploits our compassion for the sick," Barthwell says. "They are using patients' pain and suffering in an attempt to change America's drug control policy. Marijuana is a crude plant product that most definitely is not a medicine."

It's a curious statement, given that it seems to reflect neither the views of the international scientific community nor those of the government's own regulatory agencies. For one thing, the Food and Drug Administration is reviewing 139 new-drug applications involving botanical research products, so plant-based medicines certainly aren't anathema. As for cannabis, in 1999 the Institute of Medicine, working at the behest of the White House drug czar's office, issued a lengthy report that assessed the scientific evidence concerning potential medical uses of marijuana. Its preeminent recommendation: "Research should continue into physiological effects of synthetic and plant-derived cannabinoids."

Barthwell, however, says that marijuana hasn't been standardized for pharmaceutical production. Nor is there any evidence, she says, that the plant's various compounds can be reliably produced in consistent concentrations. Clearly, she hasn't visited the world's most futuristic pot farm.