Should marijuana be legalized?

[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. 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.


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.


[color]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.....[/color]


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.


[color]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.....[/color]

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.