Should marijuana be legalized?

Should we legalize it?

  • Yes

    Votes: 52 73.2%
  • No

    Votes: 19 26.8%

  • Total voters
    71
If alcohol had never been invented, and someone created it today there is no way it would be made legal. The government would say no because it:

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

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

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

The other day I also read in the paper that strains of skunk are just as powerful as heroin. Thats almost as misinformed as those Reefer Madness videos from the 50's.
 
Werbung:
If alcohol had never been invented, and someone created it today there is no way it would be made legal. The government would say no because it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

usage of marijuana will lead to usage of harder drugs.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

Now for some real truth we will start here

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

good luck

http://jackherer.com/comparison.html



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity.
 
More TRUTH about the prohibition and lies

http://jackherer.com/chapter04.html


A Conspiracy to Wipe Out the Natural Competition

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Social Reorganization"

A series of secret meetings were held.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* About $5,000 in 1998 dollars.

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

A Question of Motive

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

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

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

Mr. Rens: It will cost a million.

Senator Brown: Thank you. (Witness dismissed.)

Hearst, His Hatred and Hysterical Lies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://jackherer.com/chapters.html


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


http://jackherer.com/chapter15.html

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

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


Wasting Time, Wasting Lives

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government Doublespeak

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

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

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

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

What they found was shocking.
 
Refuting the Government LIES

http://jackherer.com/chapter15.html


Lingering THC Metabolites

The Hype:

It Stays in Your System for 30 Days

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

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

The Facts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lung Damage Studies

The Hype:

More Harmful Than Tobacco

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


The Fact:

Not One Documented Case of Cancer

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lab Studies Fail to Reflect the Real World

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

How Rumors Get Started

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Was this reported to the press?"

"Well, it's in the article," Dr. Tashkin said. "But no one in the press even asked. They just assumed the worst." His answer to us was still that not one single case of lung cancer in someone who only smoked cannabis, has ever been reported. It should be remembered that he and other doctors had predicted 20 years ago, their certainty that hundreds of thousands of marijuana smokers would by now (1997) have developed lung cancer.
 
If you think you can PROVE ANY of what i post on this as WRONG.... feel free to go to the author that i am getting my research from, and collect 100,000,.00 cash IF you can PROVE ANY of it wrong that is........

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

I didn't see where to contact him about collecting the 10K, but it is my bet that he will reneg on his offer.
 
No problem. From the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

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

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


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

Just out of interest, have you ever tried marajuana plaerider? I don't mean this in a patronizing way.
 
No problem. From the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

all of his information comes from the federal government
Btw its a 100,000.00 challenge and here it is http://jackherer.com/index.html
 
No No go to jack herer tell him hes wrong abot whatever it is you seem to think you have him on and collect your money.....its quite simple The money is yours you have to PRVE beyond the shadow of a doubt 100% that he is wrong and he will pay you ........why debate it with me when all this money is on the line i say your pretty much flat out WRONG sorry buddy the stats above say it all PERIOD you take your lil blurb and go collect the dough now.....................ohhhhh you cant because your wrong

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

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

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

It is possible to prove things one hundred percent.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top