Should marijuana be legalized?

[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?
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[color]



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.


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 is administered. And [A] is harmful, then must be harmful.

Your case;
If [A] occurs in half of test subjects when is administered. And [A] is harmful, then there is no evidence that is harmful.

I assert that my case is correct since even though 50% experience these harmful effects and these effects are caused by it's evident that instigates harmful effects, thus by this definition, 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 must be harmful.
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 is harmful.

I assert that my case is correct since even though 50% experience these harmful effects and these effects are caused by it's evident that instigates harmful effects, thus by this definition, 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.