Should marijuana be legalized?

Should we legalize it?

  • Yes

    Votes: 52 73.2%
  • No

    Votes: 19 26.8%

  • Total voters
    71
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
 
Werbung:
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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[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.


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
 
Although studies have 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.
 
Werbung:
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.
 
Back
Top