Thread: Legalizing Mary-Jane Yes or No?

Originally Posted by TwoStoopid

Your forgetting that your authoritative text is 9 years old. Just because it is an authoritative text does not necessarily mean it is true. Although this time you have provided support for the claim in this instance it does not mean all instances are true. As an example (I'll use the CIA for shits and giggles): There were many "Authoritative Texts" released on studies and experiments conducted by the CIA. Today we are finding that some of these were previously thought "facts" are entirely false. An intellectual should challenge ideas not follow them.

Age is an undependable factor in determining validity. While we don't expect authoritive texts to be true all the time, we call them authoritve because we understand that they have a higher standard involved in their creation that most other publications. Small experiments that may or may not have been peer reviewed or had proper rigor applied to will not be included in the encyclopedia, which itself realizes that it needs updates on a regular basis. The higher standard that applies is comforting to know especially when dealing with what may be affecting somebody. Understanding that what is written in that specific text has a time-tested history of being accurate, and even mentions when links are only causal and should be attributed to greater issues is of incredibly high value. There is no point in treating it with a high degree of skepticism simply because it has earned a reputation of being an authoritive text - that's paranoia for no real reason. Understanding that the text can be flawed, because we are constantly advancing our comprehension in these fields, is one thing, but dismissing something entirely because of a conspiracy theorists attitudes about institutionalized knowledge is pretty foolish, especially for something as widespread and with as much proven value that the DSM IV TR has demonstrated.

Also, if you're going to cite authoritive texts that have been proven false, list the examples. otherwise, setting up strawmen is a pretty shitty way of proving your point. It's of my opinion that intellectuals should consider and weigh all ideas, not simply challenge them entirely out of habit.

i can hardly think of a less biased source of information on the health repercussions of cannabis use than cannabis culture

my point with mentioning that the culture itself is biased is entirely valid. while the culture is certainly looking to ensure they're doing something safe, the group is most likely to be have a confirmational bias in anything they find, looking for the studies, or just making shit up, for things that enhance cannabis in the eyes of the masses and downplay the dangers of the pasttime. this isn't to say that they're always wrong, but it's important, as an intellectual, to understand where a source stands and where the inclination is to bend an argument. there is always a bias, especially in printed media, and that specific group is more likely to be guilty of bias than, say, the DSM.

also i'm a little surprised at your bravado at saying syme isn't critical in thought, or that he doesn't challenge ideas. i understand that you're new, but he's earned a reputation for having well-thought out arguments, an efficient means of conveying his opinions and a sharp eye for bs with the ability to succunctly describe it. there is a subtle distinction in your argument that i think you missed - weighing the validity of an idea is a form of challenging it (although challenging is an aggressive word, and weighing opinions is not an aggressive thing to do), but methods of challenging ideas don't necessarily adhere to thoughtful consideration and weighing of the respective merits of competing thoughts. all rhinos are animals, but not all animals are rhinos etc. etc. etc.

Originally Posted by coqauvin

my point with mentioning that the culture itself is biased is entirely valid. while the culture is certainly looking to ensure they're doing something safe, the group is most likely to be have a confirmational bias in anything they find, looking for the studies, or just making shit up, for things that enhance cannabis in the eyes of the masses and downplay the dangers of the pasttime. this isn't to say that they're always wrong, but it's important, as an intellectual, to understand where a source stands and where the inclination is to bend an argument. there is always a bias, especially in printed media, and that specific group is more likely to be guilty of bias than, say, the DSM.

also i'm a little surprised at your bravado at saying syme isn't critical in thought, or that he doesn't challenge ideas. i understand that you're new, but he's earned a reputation for having well-thought out arguments, an efficient means of conveying his opinions and a sharp eye for bs with the ability to succunctly describe it. there is a subtle distinction in your argument that i think you missed - weighing the validity of an idea is a form of challenging it (although challenging is an aggressive word, and weighing opinions is not an aggressive thing to do), but methods of challenging ideas don't necessarily adhere to thoughtful consideration and weighing of the respective merits of competing thoughts. all rhinos are animals, but not all animals are rhinos etc. etc. etc.

I never said it wasn't valid, I was actually completely agreeing. But at the same time I was bringing up the idea that it might not be so bad to listen to the biased group sometimes. It's like you said, we're all looking towards the health aspect constantly, and finding new things about cannabis all the time. You say that because of the biased we make things up, well I can assure you the non biased group makes up rumors and myths all the time. I mean look at the anti pot commercials, almost all of them are invalid in reason yet people believe them. There are also ways around the biased as well such as double blind study and other ways to get rid of the experimenter or good subject effect.



As for calling syme uncritical in thought, I was simply stating that he was trying to say I was uncritical in thought while accusing me of doing the exact same thing in a different manner. I never meant to portray that anybody on here is uncritical in thought, if that's how it was perceived then I'm sorry.

Edit: after all it's a debate, you can accept your opponents arguments or ignore them. There's no reason for personal insult.

Originally Posted by TwoStoopid

I never said it wasn't valid, I was actually completely agreeing. But at the same time I was bringing up the idea that it might not be so bad to listen to the biased group sometimes. It's like you said, we're all looking towards the health aspect constantly, and finding new things about cannabis all the time. You say that because of the biased we make things up, well I can assure you the non biased group makes up rumors and myths all the time. I mean look at the anti pot commercials, almost all of them are invalid in reason yet people believe them. There are also ways around the biased as well such as double blind study and other ways to get rid of the experimenter or good subject effect.

I don 't think you understand what bias is. Bias is the tendency to skew information to come up with a certain favourable results while downplaying, ignoring or omitting sometimes crucial information to the contrary. You can be biased for marijuana (Cannabis Culture) or biased against (anti-drug folk). A completely unbiased source would neutrally give out information on the topic as it is, without coming to conclusions based on their own preferences. Because of this, even if a biased group has a great point to make, they've already done the damage to themselves because skeptics cannot take them seriously as a source, and the only people who believe them will end up being those who would believe anything they say in the first place.

Originally Posted by TwoStoopid

As for calling syme uncritical in thought, I was simply stating that he was trying to say I was uncritical in thought while accusing me of doing the exact same thing in a different manner. I never meant to portray that anybody on here is uncritical in thought, if that's how it was perceived then I'm sorry.

Edit: after all it's a debate, you can accept your opponents arguments or ignore them. There's no reason for personal insult.

He did say you were being uncritical in thought because you were. You chose to reference heavily biased sources and say they were some of the more valid places to get information and at the same time denounce a completely unbiased source with a reputation for being a medical encyclopedia. That's being uncritical in thought for the source you like (you're own bias - honestly, nothing wrong with that, but it's like building a house on sand when you argue like that), and being overly critical of a solid, reputable source. I should point out that it wasn't simply a personal insult, it was an admittedly abrasive way of saying what I've just said now. If he called you stupid and never proved it, that's a personal attack, otherwise, he's making a point and it's entirely up to Syme to determine how he wants to do that. Don't be afraid to call people foolish for making certain arguments, just make sure that you're correct in doing so.

Originally Posted by coqauvin

I don 't think you understand what bias is. Bias is the tendency to skew information to come up with a certain favourable results while downplaying, ignoring or omitting sometimes crucial information to the contrary. You can be biased for marijuana (Cannabis Culture) or biased against (anti-drug folk). A completely unbiased source would neutrally give out information on the topic as it is, without coming to conclusions based on their own preferences. Because of this, even if a biased group has a great point to make, they've already done the damage to themselves because skeptics cannot take them seriously as a source, and the only people who believe them will end up being those who would believe anything they say in the first place.

Right, but as I said, you can get around the effects of being biased when conducting experiments and/or correlation studies. Such as a double blind study (which I referred to earlier), where the experimenter is "blind" from parts of the experiment that can be altered by a bias. As for being bias for or against marijuana, I believe there is nobody that is truly unbiased towards the subject.

Originally Posted by coqauvin

For the sake of clarity and common understanding, I'm copy/pasting the DSM IV TR's entry on Cannabis here.

Please provide a link...I searched the site and haven't found this. I am writing an article about marijuana for my psychology class and this would be a very helpful resource. Thank you.

Originally Posted by TwoStoopid

As for being bias for or against marijuana, I believe there is nobody that is truly unbiased towards the subject.

If you mean this in the same way as you might say nobody is truly unbiased towards any subject, then sure. If you mean that the subject of marijuana legalisation is somehow rare or even unique in terms of its propensity to bias people, then I will have to disagree. I'm not biased in the marijuana debate in any meaningful way, I assure you, and I see no reason to regard it that way over other debated issues.

Originally Posted by masterpilot

Please provide a link...I searched the site and haven't found this. I am writing an article about marijuana for my psychology class and this would be a very helpful resource. Thank you.

I think because of the demand for this, the only online way you'll find it is a pay-to-read section on various websites. psychiatryonline.com has uploaded the entire book, but, like I said, you'll need to register with them and pay to be able to read it. I'm sure you could find a torrent for it somewhere if you look hard enough.

Originally Posted by gwahir

If you mean this in the same way as you might say nobody is truly unbiased towards any subject, then sure. If you mean that the subject of marijuana legalisation is somehow rare or even unique in terms of its propensity to bias people, then I will have to disagree. I'm not biased in the marijuana debate in any meaningful way, I assure you, and I see no reason to regard it that way over other debated issues.

You mean to tell me that you would feel no emotion if marijuana was legalized?

Originally Posted by TwoStoopid

You mean to tell me that you would feel no emotion if marijuana was legalized?

How is that the same as being unbiased? Unbiased doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion.

I'm unbiased in the sense of having nothing to gain either way. There's no way for the issue to play to my personal preferences because, regarding marijuana, I have none. What I have is some knowledge of the issue, from which I have formed an opinion of whether it should be legalised. That's not the same as bias.

Originally Posted by gwahir

How is that the same as being unbiased? Unbiased doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion.

I'm unbiased in the sense of having nothing to gain either way. There's no way for the issue to play to my personal preferences because, regarding marijuana, I have none. What I have is some knowledge of the issue, from which I have formed an opinion of whether it should be legalised. That's not the same as bias.

On the contrary, how many people do you know who smoke weed? Or what of the people who would decide to smoke weed if it is legalized? These people could be or your boss, friends, family, significant other, etc.

Originally Posted by TwoStoopid

On the contrary, how many people do you know who smoke weed? Or what of the people who would decide to smoke weed if it is legalized? These people could be or your boss, friends, family, significant other, etc.

If you dig any deeper you are going to be able to talk to gwahir in person. Just shut the fuck up.

Originally Posted by Killuminati

If you dig any deeper you are going to be able to talk to gwahir in person. Just shut the fuck up.

He is aptly named.

Originally Posted by TwoStoopid

On the contrary, how many people do you know who smoke weed? Or what of the people who would decide to smoke weed if it is legalized? These people could be or your boss, friends, family, significant other, etc.

Again: Bias doesn't mean just having an opinion, it means the tendency to skew results in a favorable direction while ignoring or downplaying information that contradicts your opinion. It doesn't matter if gwahir has friends, loved ones, etc. who smoke or would smoke marijuana; those things might inform his opinion, but that doesn't mean they bias him, and you are wrong to accuse him of bias unless you have evidence that he is inflating some evidence and downplaying other evidence because of his opinion. Bias is an observable tendency in people's behavior with regard to facts, not the presence of an opinion.

Originally Posted by DAVIDSDIVAD

The argument to legalize "medical marijuana" is quite ridiculous.

There is already a pill called Marinol, which contains Dronabinol. This, as you should know, is an isoform of the compound known as THC, which is largely responsible for the effects of marijuana smoking in humans.

Anyone wishing to enjoy the beneficial effects can simply be prescribed a pill like Marinol, as opposed to smoking, which has harmful side effects.


I believe the strongest argument for THC use is the alleviation of dysfunctional appetites. In several populations, the appetite of an individual can be stimulated with great effect by the administration of Dronabinol.

Those wishing to relieve stress to the eyes due to Glaucoma should ask their doctors about something like Pirenzipine, which is much more effective in correcting eye related problems than something like smoking a joint.

Others, who simply wish to alleviate chronic pains would probably be better suited by the massive variety of other analgesics available.



Also, Smoking marijuana absolutely is harmful. If you don't agree with anything else, you simply can't deny the presence of PACs (basically nasty, polymerized carbon rings) in the lungs as a result of smoking. This causes the paralyzation of the cilia present in the windpipe, which causes particles that would normally be transported out to cause infection and irritation. This is the cause of the commonly misunderstood "smoker's cough."

You are either a troll or an idiot, I can't tell which.

Originally Posted by Killuminati

You are either a troll or an idiot, I can't tell which.

This was my first serious post on the forum, guy.


Marinol is basically THC in a capsule.
all of the therapeutic effects with none of the stigma or "cool factor" of smoking weed.


It essentially means that the "legalize weed" debate is really a non issue.

Originally Posted by DAVIDSDIVAD

This was my first serious post on the forum, guy.


Marinol is basically THC in a capsule.
all of the therapeutic effects with none of the stigma or "cool factor" of smoking weed.


It essentially means that the "legalize weed" debate is really a non issue.

What about all the cannabinoids in weed retard. Most of them are more medicinally beneficial then thc in most situations. THC is good to get rid of cancer but beyond that a lot of the different cannabinoids are more useful. Marinol makes people feel paranoid and unpleasant. Why do you think there are all those cancer patients out there smoking weed for nausea? Do you think that if marinol worked for them they wouldn't be using it? Or are they all just stoners who are trying to get high? First of all it's a pill which is hard for the patients to even keep down a lot of the time. Also it's hard to tell how much to take at once because of the delay. Then, even if it helps their nausea it takes a long time if they can even keep it down and they have to guess how much to take. If they take too much it's extremely unpleasant. When they smoke it affects them almost immediately and they don't have to worry about throwing it up. This is much better for pain and such I think because it is just an extract from the plant. It's not just pure synthetic THC. Alternatively they could just use a vaporizer but whatever works.

Also the legalizing weed issue should really have nothing to do with it's medicinal value or all the money that will be made in taxes. Who the fuck is the government to tell us what we can or can't do in the privacy of our home. We should have the constitutional right to grow and smoke in our houses. Especially something that does nothing bad. Smoking weed doesn't make people angry, it makes them calm down. It does a bit of damage to your lungs and it can give you chronic bronchitis and such but it won't give you emphysema or cancer. It won't destroy your brain or any of your organs. You can smoke weed 5 times a day for 30 years and be fine. Shit look at this guy. He just smoked his 115,000 joint provided to him by our government. Not only is it saving his life but he is out leading a productive life while smoking 10-12 joints a day. Do you think he is the only person that would benefit from that? There are currently 3 federal medical marijuana patients and for a long time now it hasn't been possible to become one. These only are because they were grandfathered in when the government stopped the federal medical marijuana. This guy has just outlived everyone and continues to live a normal life, the government doesn't want people to know about him.

"There are over 400 chemicals in marijuana, but only 61 [80 as of July 9, 2009; see Editor's Note below] of them are unique to the Cannabis plant -- these are called cannabinoids. One of them, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), was isolated and synthesized in 1964 and is clearly the most pharmacologically active.
Take special note that the relationship of THC to Cannabis is probably more similar to the relationship of mescaline to peyote then of alcohol to beer, wine, or distilled spirits. Alcohol is the only behaviorally active agent in alcoholic beverages, but there might be several active agents in Cannabis."

You are confused.

I don't know the chemistry behind it so when you start talking about stuff like carboxylic groups I don't know what it means. I'm not even sure what you are arguing but all I know is that marinol is synthetic thc. Just THC. What about CBD, CBN, THCV etc.?

Originally Posted by some site

The Active Ingredients Of Cannabis

Cannabis products include marijuana, hashish, and hashish oil.

THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol) gets a user high, a larger THC content will produce a stronger high. Without THC you don't get high.

CBD (Cannabidiol) increases some of the effects of THC and decreases other effects of THC. High levels of THC and low levels of CBD contribute to a strong, clear headed, more energetic high.

Cannabis that has a high level of both THC and CBD will produce a strong head-stone that feels almost dreamlike. Cannabis that has low levels of THC and high levels of CBD produces more of a stoned feeling. The mind feels dull and the body feels tired.

CBN (Cannabinol) is produced as THC ages and breaks down, this process is known as oxidization. High levels of CBN tend to make the user feel messed up rather than high.

CBN levels can be kept to a minimum by storing cannabis products in a dark, cool, airtight environment. Marijuana should be dry prior to storage, and may have to be dried again after being stored somewhere that is humid.

THCV (Tetrahydrocannabivarin) is found primarily in strains of African and Asian cannabis. THCV increases the speed and intensity of THC effects, but also causes the high to end sooner. Weed that smells strong (prior to smoking) might indicate a high level of THCV.

CBC (Cannabichromene) is probably not psychoactive in pure form but is thought to interact with THC to enhance the high.

CBL (Cannabicyclol) is a degradative product like CBN. Light converts CBC to CBL.

LOL, CBD actually acts as an antagonist at some THC receptors.

CBN (Cannabinol) is produced as THC ages and breaks down, this process is known as oxidization.

Remember that part I said about Marinol being metabolized because it's taken orally?

Oxidation is a form of metabolization.

Originally Posted by DAVIDSDIVAD

Yes, dronabinol is exactly the same as "natural" cannaboids in its effects. The pharmackinetics are very different, but the effect of the drug is exactly the same.

Maybe you are using some very specific pharmacological definition of the word "effects", but barring that, what I've read suggests that they are NOT exactly the same in their effects; again, Marinol use is apparently more likely to cause unpleasant or undesirable psychoactive effects than "natural" marijuana use. Again, unless you are using some particular specialized definition of the word "effects", that seems like a difference in effects to me. Yes, the reasons for the different effects are pharmacokinetic in origin (breakdown of THC into the more strongly psychoactive compound 11-hydroxy-THC when ingested Marinol is processed through the liver); that doesn’t have anything to do with the basic fact that ingesting Marinol has different effects than smoking marijuana.

Originally Posted by DAVIDSDIVAD

The reason it has a longer onset is because it has to go through the gut, to the liver, and then be circulated. This allows the body to change the drug to whatever structure it wants. (The same reason Heroin has such profound effects in humans, the body changes it to 4 structures, each with huge effects)

These are all, believe it or not, considered to be good things.

What I've read seems to suggest that the slow onset time is not considered to be a good thing for people who are using the drug for relief from unpleasant symptoms of some sort. They want it to start working ASAP. Marinol’s slow onset time is not desirable in such cases. Plus, again, there is the cost issue.

Just to be clear, I’m not a big medical-marijuana proponent, and as I said earlier, I don’t think that medical use should be the main impetus behind marijuana legalization. But it does seem to be the case that Marinol doesn’t offer some of the benefits of “natural” marijuana, so I think it’s misleading to suggest that Marinol is equivalent to “natural” marijuana in every way and thus obviates the medical argument for marijuana usage.

Simple fact is, that even if it is legalized, the growers will have to be FDA regulated, which means that leafy weed simply will not pass due to the harmful side effects.

Marinol is the best option as of now.

I think the vaporization method you mentioned is in serious need of research as it bypasses the first pass effect, and would avoid those slow onset problems.

Originally Posted by DAVIDSDIVAD

Simple fact is, that even if it is legalized, the growers will have to be FDA regulated, which means that leafy weed simply will not pass due to the harmful side effects.

Marinol is the best option as of now.

I think the vaporization method you mentioned is in serious need of research as it bypasses the first pass effect, and would avoid those slow onset problems.

You are an idiot.

Excellent argument, Killuminati; allow me to retort.


No, you.
You're basing your entire argument off of google skillz and emotion.

HURR DURR I LIEK WEED AND U SUCK N I NO GUYZ DAT SMOKE WEED ALL DER LIVES AND NUTTIN BAD HAPPENZ.


Enjoy your case studies all you want; chemistry is chemistry.

Originally Posted by DAVIDSDIVAD

Simple fact is, that even if it is legalized, the growers will have to be FDA regulated, which means that leafy weed simply will not pass due to the harmful side effects.

I'm not so sure about that, tobacco was recently brought under the FDA's regulatory umbrella and it's not going anywhere despite the fact that it is far more dangerous than marijuana. It's not like FDA regulation is some impassable barrier that cannot be crossed by products with any harmful side effects. Different types of products/substances are subject to differing regulatory regimes, based on the legislation that places them with within the FDA's purview. Legalized marijuana wouldn't necessarily be regulated according the same standards that, say, food products are regulated according to. The regulatory standards to which marijuana would be held would depend on what the relevant legislation says about it. Since that legislation doesn't really exist yet, we can't exactly claim that "leafy weed simply will not pass".

As for vaporizers, I don't think there is actually that much research needed into vaporization; it's not like it's some new and unknown method. It's apparently already the most common recommended method for patients using marijuana medically in states where it's legal, and there seems to be plenty of existing research proving it's safety. I would say that "natural" weed in a vaporizer, not Marinol, is the best option as of now and in the forseeable future.

They're (FDA) under serious stress right now, and you've got to remember that the proponents of marijuana don't have big wig lobbyists on their side like tobacco does.


I agree with your points with the exception of the vaporization being better than marinol in a healthcare setting.



In a "let's get high" setting, then yeah, the vaporizer is best.

I think Prohibition in the US is kind of a weak example, AnynoD, but I mean, it's at least very weakly related.

Look here you idiots.

I posted in this thread because I wanted to have an illustration for dear Coqauvin that any stoner (Killuminati) or internet big dick can inflate their e-ego in AI just by googling for five fucking minutes. I actually have education in pharmacology. You know, books, classrooms and shit.




This entire forum is ridiculous and you guys are pitiful for taking it seriously.


You're like those hipsters that hang out in coffee shops and pretend that they're making some grand observations on politics and society.


Fuck all of you.



Also, in b4 simonj and assorted "lol u lose argument so u get mad."