Printable View
Over the last 20 years this has become quite a hot topic. Especially in the medical sense. Marijuana has been proven to help all types of medical conditions such as glaucoma,cancer, & binge drinking? Yes, now they say marijuana can help protect the brain from some of the effects of binge drinking which can be really great news to some of us.
http://localwireless.com/wap/news/te...ational%20News
So honostley- should marijuana be legalized?
Ok so you want to start a thread on a serious topic of drug reform, yet you call it "mary-jane" in the thread title, use horrible grammar and spelling (honostley, you do) and use "localwireless.com" as your source?
In an attempt to save the thread, I'll bite on your topic - the problem with the marijuana legalization movement is because those who most avidly support it are retarded potheads that cannot make a good traditional argument. They come off as stupid potheads and no one pays any attention to them.
My personal position is that ALL drugs should be legalized, in the sense that they are not illegal to consume or possess. You should have the right to do whatever harm to your body you want as long as it does not endanger others. Now, if the government was smart, they would not only legalize marijuana but assume regulation of production. It is much safer than alcohol, cigarettes, prescription drugs and many more things I'd guess, even safer than caffeine or aspartame. If a kid can buy a diet coke and get two drugs in it that have proven harmful in lab rats, why can't a legal adult buy a joint? Do you know how much marijuana it takes to kill a lab rat? About 20 pounds... dropped on the rat's head. (I didn't make that up, I paraphrased it from something I heard).
Where's Killuminati when I need him?
I don't think it is as simple a matter as saying "ok, you are legal", I would imagine the process of legalisation would bring with it many challenges - all of which I feel are worth the effort. I would support legalisation, here is why I would.
First off, the legal status of marijuana is inconsistent with the legal status of other substances such as tobacco and alcohol, two substances significantly more dangerous and harmful. Tobacco smoking is essentially a process of slow, legal poisoning and its health destroying effects are common knowledge. Alcohol not only does untold damage to the brain and internal organs, the social damage it can cause is even more severe. In the UK for instance, something like 60% of all A+E admissions are alcohol related over the weekend period, costing the NHS billions each year. The cost of policing town and city centres also runs into the millions because so many people do not drink in a responsible manner.
That it should be ok to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol, yet not smoke marijuana or take other drugs is just nonsensical, it is inconsistant and it sends out a very misleading message.
Secondly, the act of criminalisation almost certainly causes more problems than it solves. If you drive a product or service underground, where it can be afforded no legal protection, it will get into the hands of thugs. Drug dealers, not being able to use the legal system to protect their business often have to resort to violence and intimidation, drugs being one of the main sources of the UK's gun crime problem. Having the industry in the hands of thugs, with no legal duty of care to the consumer means there is no way of being sure what you buy is a quality product, there is also no way of protecting the consumer from inscrupulous dealers which in itself can lead to other criminal acts i.e., revenge attacks since there is no legal recourse.
Imprisoning people who take these drugs, and indeed in some cases people who sell them, especially when there is no evidence of violence ends up creating an unjust criminal class. People who are addicts, especially to harder drugs like heroin will not get clean if you jail them. And that someone can get a criminal record, which in itself can have a terrible impact on a persons job prospects just for getting high on an unsanctioned substance is so mind bogglingly unfair and stupid it staggers me that such a system is in place.
Thirdly, attitudes need to change. I can only speak for the UK, but there has been a massive and very successful campaign of misinformation by the state, meaning popular opinion of drugs is often very innacurate in relation to facts. It seems that drug policy is developed more with the use of muisinformed popular opinion and fear mongering than it is from facts and evidence, a classic example being a few months ago when an Oxbridge proffessor who advises the UK government on drug policy advised that esctacy be downgraded from a class A as it was no more harmful than horse riding, advice promptly ignored by the then home secratary and lampooned by certain interest groups on the media, primarily parents who lost kids to drugs.
It struck me as disgusting that an Oxbridge scientist, whose opinion is formed using evidence could be so hastily disregarded, and indeed have his opinion clouded out because it doesn't fit with popular opinion. Things need to change, I do honestly think we should strive as a society to form opinions etc using as many facts as possible, I know humans do not have a good track record with such things, but none the less it would be nice to see if we as a society could do this as it would mean we would "grow up" and stop being so childish around the drugs issue.
Irony ITT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Scarf
Regardless of my spelling,grammar,or source you yourself should refer to the dictionary and check out the spelling of "honostley" because it's spelled honestly. So HONESTLY~ I can understand how you feel or why you might feel that way.. However a bunch of heroin or pcp addicts biting the eyes out of little children just doesn't fly with me. Yes that's where becoming a danger to others comes in. I understand that an addict in itself is a danger to others (robbing,stealing,mugging,littering AIDS infested needles everywhere). However MARY JANE alone tends not to cause these types of problems. In fact it has had some very important breakthroughs medicinaly in the last 20 years. And although you may be richer (BAHAH!) and more educated than myself I find your response complete JACKASSERY~ but to each their own. I hope you voted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Scarf
You sir, are an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef
They should regulate it and tax it, if they offered a better deal than drug dealers then that would drive them out of business, or at least reduce their income significantly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Scarf
It would also make it a lot safer, im not sure how it is in the US, but in the UK there was/is a problem with contamination, people adding stuff such as sand, glue and even some reports of lead to increase their profit.
*chortles quietly*Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef
this isn't flames, mon ami
normally i would object but hes banned so he got what he deserved already
object in flames, or contribute and object there really isn't any other alternative here
yes sir mr coq sir
that's better
One topic that no one has addressed is the economy. Marijuana posses a violent threat to many other products that basically run the global economy. To make it legal would require billions of dollars spent lobbying the senators and Reps that are backed by the paper companies, the pharmaceutical company's and others that contribute a huge percentage to their reelection. If they were to suddenly legalize it, there would be a multitude of new products that would effectively annihilate other products from the market.
Family Guy actually touched on this during their 420 episode, how Hearst had run the smear campaign to protect his interests in the timber industry. This remains true today, how much money is brought in through the timber industry, and now with that logging show on Nat-Geo or whatever there is more money than ever coming out of the rain forest. If marijuana were to be legalized, farms would be set up where it wouldn't be the bud, but rather the stalks of hemp that could be cultivated and sold at a cheaper and more efficient price than timber.
Also, By legalizing Marijuana you are effectively announcing that the government was wrong. And in modern society that causes a lot of uneasiness between voters and the elected officials. If suddenly everyone were to change their minds about this, then perhaps they could suddenly change their minds about religion or about gun control. It allows for too much instability within the political arena for it to just HAPPEN like that.
So basically you're saying that the government is artificially altering what succeeds in the market so that things that make less sense end up winning out. This will fix that. Sounds like a pretty good thing that should have happened awhile ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGreatSocrates
As for the government "admitting that it was wrong." I think a lot more people have a bigger problem with the government's LACK of willingness to admit that it gets things wrong. It would be a nice breath of fresh air. Very rarely does the government make any steps to let us have more control of our own lives though instead of the extremely common practice of intruding into our lives more and more; I'd be really surprised if this happens anytime soon.
I do agree with parts of that. Taxing & legalizing marijuana would definately hurt a drug dealer's business in turn making the streets a bit safer. (in theory anyway) However, if everyone picks up a pack of joints to go with their 12 pack of beer our highways are destined to become a graveyard. So recreational use doesn't have my vote as much as medicinally does. I just don't see the downfall for medical marijuana.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach 5
ehm lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Beef
people shouldn't be driving after a 12 pack anyway. if everyone drove after a 12 pack of beer, your highways would be a graveyard anyway.
Please. I agree that driving while high is dangerous, but it's less dangerous than driving while drunk, and alcohol is already legal for recreational use. So legalizing recreational marijuana use is not going to push us over the brink into some driving-safety nightmare where the highways are graveyards. It's not going to make that much of a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef
Yes, he's not denying that it's a good thing, he's pointing out the political difficulties that will nevertheless the attend to it due to the substantial size of the industries that legalized marijuana and hemp cultivation would compete with. He's not offering an argument against legalization, he's pointing out an obstacle to legalization. Although I think he's exaggerating. Industrial hemp farming will not "annihilate" other textile products or lumber-derived paper products, for instance; the US is the only country in the world that bans industrial hemp farming, so we can look to other countries for insight on this matter, and see that despite the legality of industrial hemp farming in those countries, non-hemp products have no problem existing in the market along with similar hemp-derived products. The same is true of the pharmaceuticals industry. Marijuana has some interesting applications but it is never going to "annihilate" a large portion of the pharma industry's profits.Quote:
Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable
I'd rather see decriminalization versus legalization. I don't like the drug cartels, but I actually dislike the tobacco industry more. And the tobacco industry would be mass producing cheap, poor quality marijuana. I'd prefer to go to my dealer and spend a little more on the good stuff knowing that the tobacco industries won't see a dime of it.
Also, this may or may not have been mentioned yet, but do you know who the main people contributing to anti-drug movements are? The alcohol companies. Legalization would take a massive chunk of their profits, and they know it. So they support any propaganda to get people to vote against it.
Marijuana is proven to be safer than alcohol. That's really a non-issue. It cannot be disputed. Driving while high is less safe than driving sober, but not even on the same level as driving even buzzed. From a recreational viewpoint, few drugs are both as harmful and addicting as alcohol. Alcohol withdrawals from addiction are only surpassed by those from a benzodiazepine addiction. Alcohol withdrawals can actually kill you. There is not one recorded case of physical withdrawals from marijuana. Whether marijuana is safer than alcohol is a point that has been decided for years. there really is no dispute on it.
You know that it's still possible to buy good-quality tobacco from suppliers who specialize in it, despite the fact that the big cigarette companies are also making a lot of cheap crappy tobacco, right? The same would presumably hold true for marijuana. A huge portion of the marijuana user base wants good stuff, so if it was legalized, that demand is going create a large market for high-quality marijuana that many suppliers will get into. You'd still be able to get the good stuff, and you wouldn't have to give any of your money to big tobacco companies if you didn't want to (it'd go to smaller niche suppliers, many of them probably totally unconnected to the tobacco industry), AND that good stuff would cost substantially less than you are paying to your dealer for it now. It's not like legalizing weed will make good stuff harder to get, or mean that the only available weed will be low-quality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinysides
Yes I think it should be made legal but fat chance of that happening in America or Britain.
I think the governments just have the worst case scenario in mind (legalizing it and a good portion of the population becoming lazy stoners, among other inconclusive health issues). Not everyone's gonna smoke it if it's legal, and not every smoker will become lazy or crazy. It's the smoker's fault (albeit assisted by the weed) if they lose motivation or fuck up their perception and that's when it's time to take responsibility for themselves and cut it out (some will, some won't). It's the same with alcohol, people handle it in different ways, some use responsibly and some don't. I think the effects are much more drastic with alcohol though. Irresponsible drinkers just need to keep themselves away from it but that doesn't mean that by law, everyone else has to. I'm sure the amount of drunken hooligans driving recklessly, endangering themselves/others, losing friends etc would outweigh the amount of people affected negatively by weed.
My personal opinion, smoking weed recreationally is a much healthier hobby than a lot of things. Extreme sports are legal and people get killed participating, people get killed in all sorts of ways, that's life. If it's their personal choice to smoke weed then why not? And if it's legal then it 'kills the dealer' so to speak and regulations would benefit people in a lot of ways. We wouldn't get contaminated hash mixed with plastic and boot polish etc, and kids wouldn't be able to get hold of it so easily with the age restrictions (but they still would, I mean alcohol proves that).
I'd make the 1st paragraph a little less confusing but I don't have the time to go back and re-write it all. I will post again later though.
being killed by doing something dangerous is not a health issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheepz
The government of any nation has a responsibility to maintain the health of the nation (not mentioning what you already have about some people becoming lazy stoners and therefore reducing the productivity of the nation, which i personally feel would be negligable.
smoking marijuana is both dangerous and harmful to your health
extreme sports are dangerous but provide many health benefits, with the exception of a very few cases of entering the ground at high speed
Smoking marijuana is not very bad for you and as you know there are other ways of taking it. Between smoking and other forms of consumption there are plenty of [ame=http://www.drugsandbooze.com/showthread.php?t=29722]benefits.[/ame] It shouldn't matter anyway, what I choose to do in the privacy of my home is my business and the government has no right to tell me what I can or can't do.Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor jack
"Responsibility to maintain the health of the nation"... This is nanny-state crap. By this logic fatty foods, cigarettes, and a host of other things should be illegal as well. They are far more unhealthy than marijuana, especially since marijuana can be taken without smoking it, which in fact totally removes the unhealthy part of marijuana consumption. I can't believe I'm actually hearing you say that something should be illegal because it's unhealthy. Killuminati is right, people have the right to decide what they are going to put into their own bodies.Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor jack
Right. You missed my point though. Extreme sports have risks and so does smoking weed, and it's upto the person if they take the risk. Not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer, and not everyone who basejumps goes splat. Not a very good comparison I know because extreme sports take practice, but anything could be around the corner.Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor jack
Same with the government though, I think with the length of time weed has been outlawed they're thinking 'better safe than sorry'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killuminati
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
I agree that people have the right to put mind altering substances into their own bodies. However, there is already a widely avaliable substance that alters the mind with premisies deticated to its distributon. Alcohol causes many problems in every nation and I personally doubt that had it been discovered yesterday, it would be heavily restricted and probably illegal. But something else would be avaliable where the bars and pubs and restaurants are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheepz
My point is that I believe one is enough. Legilisation of marijana would only add to the problems we already have with mind altering substances.
I do, however, believe that legilisation would lead to a drop in demand for the stronger, more dangerous strains but not altogether. Some people would not be satisfied. Like Everclear, stronger and stronger examples of a legal substance that if are freely avaliable and totally uncontrolled could be extremely dangerous not only to the consumer but the people around them. I think one is enough.
So everyone who smokes pot should just drink alcohol instead? Plus you said one drug is enough? What about nicotine or caffeine then? Both are much more dangerous than weed is, nicotine is like a fucking supertoxin to humans. How do you even compare the dangers of drinking alcohol to smoking weed anyway, there is no comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor jack
You can get a liver transplant but drug induced psychosis cant really be cured
drug induced psychosis through marijuana is an incredible rarity. i'm relatively certain that it's possible to reach a state of psychosis through consuming enough thc (bceause I glanced at the DSM-IV once), but the limit is beyond what you'd get if you were smoking/vaporizing the drug. You'd actually have to eat a shitload of concentrated thc, so much that you couldn't really do it by accident unless you were some special kind of stupid. So what's your point again?
The odds of getting this are slim. Any study looking at the relationship between weed and mental illness always say the same, usually reported as a small footnote - it is rare, indeed in most cases only those with genetic pre dispositions are really at risk, if they smoke lots over a prolonged period of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor jack
Indeed as coqauvin points out, the ingredient which causes the damage isn't abundant enough in the actual drug, this is the same with other drugs and I do believe that many studies looking at these compounds often use them in concentrated doses, isolated from the acual product you buy off the street (i.e., you don't smoke some weed, but instead take a concentrated dosage of the part of the drug they suspect can cause problems), I know they do this with ecstacy and I am pretty sure it is the same with weed.
Also, I am assuming by this comment that you have never met a full blown alcoholic, whilst they might not have psychosis, they clearly are not fully mentally able.
the odds of you becoming addicted to alcohol are slim. the odds of you being struck by lightning are slim. the odds that you will get so pissed off with a teacher you shoot her in the face are slim
but it still happens. Surely a government has a responsibility to prevent even the rarest of chances not only because of the individual involved but the people they come into contact with
No, that's the concept of the nanny state. The government shouldn't be required to completely look after our well being - I am perfectly intelligent and responsible enough to do so for myself. I don't want the government enforcing its or someone else's sense of morality on me, simply because there is an astronomically low chance of me hurting myself by doing something. All I want the government to do is maintain order where I live, and take care of taking money from me and spending it on infrastructure to improve my quality of life.
Also, the odds for getting addicted to alcohol aren't necessarily slim. It's either a lifestyle choice or a genetic predisposition to crave the effects of alcohol. Native Americans are particularly susceptible to this, theoretically because they have no genetic history of dealing with alcohol (although, from personal experience, some are certainly working hard on making up for millenia of not getting drunk). Not to mention that calculating odds of committing murder, premeditated or otherwise, is an exercise in foolishness and futility at best.
Here let me summarize my thoughts on this: People should be allowed to smoke up if they want simply because there is a precedent set of drugs with a greater detrimental effect on our personal lives (alcohol, nicotine, caffeine) that is already legal and widely regulated. It is not the responsibility nor the right of the government to enforce this sort of morality, and it is foolishness to expect it of them.
Are you fucking kidding me? Are you talking about the supposed link between cannabis use and Schizophrenia? Because if you are then read this.Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor jack
article
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/co...mental-illness
abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19560900
For the sake of clarity and common understanding, I'm copy/pasting the DSM IV TR's entry on Cannabis here.
Cannabis-Related Disorders
Cannabis Use Disorders
304.30 Cannabis Dependence (see p. 236)
305.20 Cannabis Abuse (see p. 236)
Cannabis-Induced Disorders
292.89 Cannabis Intoxication (see p. 237) Specify if: With Perceptual
Disturbances
292.81 Cannabis Intoxication Delirium (see p. 143)
292.]] Cannabis-Induced Psychotic Disorder, With Delusions (see p. 338)
Specify if: With Onset During Intoxication
292_11 Cannabis·lnduced Psychotic Disorder, With Hallucinations
(see p. 338) Specify if: With Onset During Intoxication
292.89 Cannabis-Induced Anxiety Disorder (see p. 479)
Specify if: With Onset During Intoxication
292.9 Cannabis-Related Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (sec p. 241)
Cannabis Use Disorders
304.30 Cannabis Dependence
305.20 Cannabis Abuse
Cannabis-Induced Disorders
292.89 Cannabis Intoxication
Diagnostic criteria for 292.89 Cannabis Intoxication
Other Cannabis-Induced Disorders
Additional Information on Cannabis-Related Disorders
Associated Features and Disorders
Associated laboratory findings.
Associated physical examination findings and general medical conditions.
Specific Culture, Age, and Gender Features
Prevalence
Course
Differential Diagnosis
292.9 Cannabis-Related Disorder
Not Otherwise Specified
The Cannabis-Related Disorder Not Otherwise Specified category is for disorders associated with the use of cannabis that are not dassifiable as Cannabis Dependence, Cannabis Abuse, Cannabis Intoxication, Cannabis Intoxication Delirium, Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, or Cannabis-Induced Anxiety Disorder.
This is just... utterly terrible.Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor jack
This really only provides an insight as to what the high is actually like, along with some of the myths of what getting high will do to you. It's been proven that one can not be physically dependent on marijuana. Also, see Kulluminiti's post.Quote:
Originally Posted by coqauvin
And just for kicks:
Cannabis Stimulates brain cell growth
Cannibis can help get rid of tumors
I have my doubts that it's filled with myths - this is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Admittedly, it's dated by about 9 years, but the next revision is supposed to be available sometime in 2012. This is, essentially, an encyclopedia entry on cannabis and it's use that doctors around the world rely on.Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoStoopid
In all honesty, I remembered reading a section about consumption levels of thc that can induce a psychotic state, but I couldn't seem to find it in this entry.
Uhh, anything that's in the DSMMD is pretty well supported by a lot of hard medical fact and research. As coq says, it's basically an encyclopedia for doctors and medical scientists. This doesn't mean everything in there is automatically guaranteed to be totally correct in every detail (as coq also points out, it's several years old at the moment), but it's not "myths". That stuff about cannabis dependence isn't just made up; it's taken directly from observation of patients, so if it's in there, then there are people who are dependent upon cannabis. This doesn't mean the dependence is physical--you are right, becoming physically dependent on cannabis in the same way that one might be physical dependent on nicotine or opioids is not possible. Nevertheless cannabis dependency does exist and is possible. Not all substance dependence is physical dependence. You will note that the section on cannabis dependence doesn't state that it's a physical dependence.Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoStoopid
There were no myths in the DSMMD article, everything that I read sounded accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.cannabisculture.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSMMD
Now, I'm just running on memory here, and I'm pretty sure I've said this already - it is possible to induce a state of psychosis by consuming enough thc. You cannot, however, cross that threshold if your method of getting high is smoking or vaporizing the pot; you'll black out well before that happens. But consider cookies or brownies that are made by leaching the thc out of the plant and having it absorb into butter. The thc levels in that butter could be concentrated and higher than anything you'd find in the plant, or even in other forms of concentrate, like hashish or hash oil. Consuming vast quantities of those levels of thc can induce a psychotic state in a person (a cannabis induced psychotic disorder), but it's not referring to a permanent psychosis based on one episode of consuming the drug. On this website, there are two people who can provide anecdotal evidence of what happens when you eat too much thc, but then anecdotal evidence, especially over the internet is questionable.
There is, however, evidence that those who suffer or have latent paranoid schizophrenia are more likely to have a psychotic episode if they use marijuana, and that consistent marijuana use brings forward symptoms of schizophrenia-spectrum disorder. This isn't something that will happen to everybody - just people who have a pre-existing medical condition. A small group of vulnerable individuals. The key distinction with such an episode that gets doctors concerned is the length of time the psychotic episode persists. In most people, it will last a couple hours and eventually fade away with 0 chance of remission. In a small group of vulnerable individuals, the symptoms can persist past a 48 hour mark, but that's more indicitive of larger medical/mental issues in the person in question, and studies haven't really been done in this particular area too much because there are too many variables to control easily.
If anyone consumes enough THC in one sitting to make that happen to them they deserve it.
TwoStoopid, the study that your "cannabis culture" website was citing is a statistical study by Dr Fisher at Keele University finding that, in the UK, increasing rates of cannabis usage among the population didn't correlate with an increased frequency of diagnosed cases of schizophrenia or other psychosis disorders. That in no way justifies your claim that cannabis-induced psychosis disorder is "a myth." As I said, disorders aren't included in the DSMMD unless they have actually been clinically observed. There's nothing in there that's hypothetical. If it's in there, that means there are actually people who suffer from cannabis-induced psychosis. It is a completely real medical condition. There are people sitting in psychiatric hospitals right now because they have cannabis-induced psychosis. So claiming that the disorder is nonexistent is utterly absurd. Here's a precis for an article from the British Journal of Psychiatry by a group of psychiatrists and doctors who have examined 535 cases of cannabis-induced psychosis: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/187/6/510
The very fact that you would put a quote from the website of Cannabis Culture Magazine next to a quote from an authoritative medical text, and try to claim that the former proves that the latter is a "myth", suggests to me that you should not be trying to make any statements about scientific facts.
I gather that you don't WANT to believe that cannabis-induced psychosis is real--and certainly it's not common, and is no reason to keep weed illegal--but it is a real set of conditions. Deal with it.
EDIT: If you had done a bit more research into the claims of Cannabis Culture's website, you might have found that Dr. Fisher's study has attracted some skepticism; there are other researchers out there who feel that unrelated factors may have lowered the UK's incidence of psychosis diagnoses concurrently with the rise in cannabis usage. All Fisher's study said was "The number of people smoking pot in the UK increased by X percent over X interval, and the rate of diagnosed psychotic cases didn't increase by a corresponding rate over the same interval". That's not the same thing as debunking the idea that cannabis usage can cause psychosis disorders.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoStoopid
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.
So, I guess you didn't really read any of what I posted? Because nothing that I said in my post is invalidated or refuted by the fact that the current DSMMD is 9 years old, unless you are seriously going to claim that every single case of cannabis-induced psychosis ever diagnosed as of nine years ago has since been recognized as a mistaken diagnosis.Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoStoopid
Let's just keep it simple and cut to the chase. Are you or are you not trying to assert that cannabis-induced psychosis is "a myth"?
EDIT:
What, is this supposed to sound deep and thoughtful? In case this hasn't occurred to you, we are BOTH challenging ideas here, and we are BOTH "following" ideas. I'm challenging the idea that cannabis-induced psychosis is a myth, and "following" the idea that well-documented medical conditions do indeed exist. You're challenging the idea that cannabis-induced psychosis is real, and following the idea that it's a myth. So your charming little platitude is really utterly meaningless, it's just the sort of empty words that poor debaters recite when they want to accuse their opponent of being uncritical in thought. Coq is right, what intellectuals should actually do is weigh competing ideas on the basis of their respective merits, and decide which one is more valid (hint: Usually not the ones being espoused by people who cite "Cannabis Culture magazine" as proof that professional medical texts are full of myths).Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoStoopid
i can hardly think of a less biased source of information on the health repercussions of cannabis use than cannabis culture
It seems you have missed some of my post as well, seeing as I agreed with you about cannabis induced psychosis after you provided some support.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
And your whole paragraph about me accusing you of being uncritical in thought is a bit like the kettle calling the pot black don't you think?
Weighing ideas on their respective merits is a valid way of challenging an idea.
We may be biased because we smoke weed, but who better to look to than the very culture itself.Quote:
i can hardly think of a less biased source of information on the health repercussions of cannabis use than cannabis culture
Back on topic:
http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/
In 1972, after reviewing the scientific evidence, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded that while marijuana was not entirely safe, its dangers had been grossly overstated. Since then, researchers have conducted thousands of studies of humans, animals, and cell cultures. None reveal any findings dramatically different from those described by the National Commission in 1972. In 1995, based on thirty years of scientific research editors of the British medical journal Lancet concluded that "the smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health."
*
United States. National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. Marihuana: A signal of misunderstanding. Shafer Commission Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.
*
“Deglamorising Cannabis.” Editorial. The Lancet 356:11(1995): 1241.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by coqauvin
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoStoopid
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoStoopid
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by coqauvin
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by coqauvin
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoStoopid
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by masterpilot
You mean to tell me that you would feel no emotion if marijuana was legalized?Quote:
Originally Posted by gwahir
How is that the same as being unbiased? Unbiased doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoStoopid
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by gwahir
If you dig any deeper you are going to be able to talk to gwahir in person. Just shut the fuck up.Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoStoopid
He is aptly named.Quote:
Originally Posted by Killuminati
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoStoopid
The argument to legalize "medical marijuana" is quite ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DAVIDSDIVAD
This was my first serious post on the forum, guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Killuminati
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.
Well, that assumes that the "legalize weed" debate is entirely about medical utility, which it isn't. It's about laws that pointlessly and senselessly restrict people's freedom to decide what to put into their own bodies, take up the time and money of law enforcement when they could be working to solve crimes that actually endanger people, and clog our overburdened court systems and prisons with people who have done absolutely nothing wrong. It's utterly absurd that marijuana isn't as legal as tobacco or alcohol (both of which are far more addictive and unhealthy). For the record, I don't smoke marijuana but I do consume alcohol and occasionally tobacco.
Also, bear in mind that Marinol isn't exactly the same as "natural" marijuana in it's effects. Ingesting a dose of chemically pure THC (which is then absorbed through the digestive tract and processed in the liver) is obviously somewhat different than inhaling the stuff, so it's no surprise that they have somewhat different effects. Marinol seems to be substantially more psychoactive, for instance. It also has a longer onset time and higher price (because it's a pharmaceutical rather than an agricultural product; and the cost difference would be even more significant if cannabis cultivation was legal, since that would certainly lower the price of "natural" marijuana).
And when you consider the medical use of marijuana, it's kind of dishonest to point out that smoking it is harmful; that's true, but smoking is also not the only way to consume marijuana. The method that seems to be recommended for medical usage is vaporization, which doesn't have the harmful effects of smoking (inhalation of harmful combustion products, irritation of the throat and lungs, etc.). So the harmfulness of smoking weed is kind of a non-issue when it comes to medical use.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DAVIDSDIVAD
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.
Dude, Dronabinol is naturally occurring in THC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Killuminati
THC is a collection of the isomers called Cannaboids :)
Basically think of it this way.
It's a bunch of differing structures, that all share one key piece of structure, and this is where the drug binds to the receptor in your body.
THC encompasses all of the cannabanoids.
1st, under the pharmacology of Marinol, paranoia is listed as a, and I quote, "Probably Casually related" adverse reaction, in about 1-3% of the anorexia patients (who are already displaying anorexia nervosa, mind you.)
I agree strongly with you about the government part; who the hell are they to tell us what to do in any situation.
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.Quote:
Also, bear in mind that Marinol isn't exactly the same as "natural" marijuana in it's effects. Ingesting a dose of chemically pure THC (which is then absorbed through the digestive tract and processed in the liver) is obviously somewhat different than inhaling the stuff, so it's no surprise that they have somewhat different effects. Marinol seems to be substantially more psychoactive, for instance. It also has a longer onset time and higher price (because it's a pharmaceutical rather than an agricultural product; and the cost difference would be even more significant if cannabis cultivation was legal, since that would certainly lower the price of "natural" marijuana).
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.
when you smoke it, all kinds of crap is binding to the receptors in your body. Weaker forms of THC, etc..
Very good point about the vaporization, Syme; I had a buddy in high school who would do that.
Everyone should bear in mind, I'm being the fact machine in this thread, I'm not against legalization, because I believe that it would reduce the violence in Mexico, etc.
What I am against is a bunch of stoners spreading misinformation about pharmacology, etc... when they don't even know the difference between the words than and then.
A good example to look to is Portugal. they legalized everything a few years ago, and usage actually dropped.
"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.
At least post the rest of the quote that you're using talking about.
Quote:
Other constituents of the cannabis plant are: nitrogenous compounds (27 known), amino acids (18), proteins (3), glycoproteins (6), enzymes (2), sugars and related compounds (34), hydrocarbons (50), simple alcohols (7), aldehydes (13), ketones (13), simple acids (21), fatty acids (22), simple esters (12), lactones (1), steroids (11), terpenes (120), non-cannabinoid phenols (25), flavonoids (21), vitamins (1) [Vitamin A], pigments (2), and elements (9).
If what you mean is that THC has some sort of drug-drug interaction with any of those things (besides, possibly, the nitrogens) then LOL. Not possible.
(By the way, those aldehydes, esters, and terpenes are bad for you)
You don't seem to have the slightest idea what I mean.
http://www.chemdrug.com/databases/SY.../26793401a.gif
Notice how that Carbon ring with the carboxylic groups doesn't change no matter where the arrow goes?
THAT, is what I am talking about.
Those are all THC. To simplify it, think of it this way. All Dronabinols are THCs. Not all THCs are Dronabinol.
Here, this should help:
http://www.designer-drugs.com/pte/12...thc/index.html
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.?
Quote:
Originally Posted by some site
LOL, CBD actually acts as an antagonist at some THC receptors.
Remember that part I said about Marinol being metabolized because it's taken orally?Quote:
CBN (Cannabinol) is produced as THC ages and breaks down, this process is known as oxidization.
Oxidation is a form of metabolization.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DAVIDSDIVAD
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DAVIDSDIVAD
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAVIDSDIVAD
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.
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by DAVIDSDIVAD
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.
Well, based on the reading I've done since this discussion began, I'd have to disagree. As far as I can tell, Marinol has several disadvantages when compared to "natural" marijuana. Increased possibility of unpleasant psychoactive effects (which seems to be the main reason that many patients dislike it), higher cost, and slow onset time seem to be big ones. Plus one of the main things that medical marijuana is used to treat is nausea, which is a problem for Marinol because it's a pill and thus the patient may puke it back up before it can take effect (this problem is compounded by the long onset time). I certainly don't disagree that Marinol has clear uses, but to claim that it's unambiguously superior to "natural" marijuana seems to clash with the facts.
EDIT: There also appears to be a fairly good argument that Marinol lacks some of the beneficial therapeutic effects of "natural" marijuana because "natural" marijuana may derive it's effects not just from THC itself, but from other compounds it contains such as cannibichromene and cannabidiol, which are not present in Marinol. Cannabidiol, for instance, is part of what makes marijuana a useful drug in the treatment for MS; so Marinol is not as useful as natural marijuana for MS sufferers.
As for the FDA question: I agree that the tobacco lobby obviously packs a lot more clout than the legalize-weed lobby does; nevertheless, my point stands. The standards by which the FDA regulates products differ from one class of products to the next, and are set by statute for each class of products. They don't hold everything to the same standard of harmfulness; fresh fruits/vegetable, canned foods, cereal products, pharmaceuticals, dietary supplements, tobacco, etc. are all subject to different sets of regulations with different requirements and allowances, some much stricter than others (obviously tobacco is permitted to contain substances that are NOT allowed in food products!). So the way in which marijuana is regulated by the FDA if/when it's legalized will depend entirely on the content of the statutes by which Congress grants the FDA authority to regulate marijuana. It's not like marijuana will automatically be placed under the same regulatory regime as, say, pharmaceuticals (or whatever). In fact I think it's more likely that it will be placed under a regulatory regime similar to that of tobacco; i.e. it will be permitted to contain substances, and have health effects, that a pharmaceutical or a food product could never get away with. And even that assumes that the FDA will regulate weed in the first place.... the FDA doesn't regulate everything, there are already various types of food and drugs that are outside their authority (meat and poultry, liquor, veterinary pharmaceuticals, etc.), so it's conceivable that legalized marijuana could be placed under the regulation of a different agency altogether. Bottom line, though, it's ridiculous to say that "weed could never get FDA approval", because the laws defining the standards by which the FDA would evaluate/regulate weed haven't even been written yet.
Ok I havent been paying attention to this thread lately, but I was looking at a similar thread on another forum lately, and saw a good question.
If weed is legalized, do you think the cartels in South America will really just stop bringing it into the USA? You think they would just give up on making that much money? IMO, they would continue to do it, and would probably be able to make the same amount of money, because Id be willing to bet the Govt would charge alot for the regulated stuff.
I think Prohibition in the US is kind of a weak example, AnynoD, but I mean, it's at least very weakly related.
Uhhh, with all due respect, this is a fantastically crappy argument. Firstly, the idea that "the Govt would charge a lot for the regulated stuff" seems to presume that legalized marijuana production would be in the hands of the government, which is not realistic. The government won't set the price, the big agri-business corporations (plus smaller producers of course) that grow and sell the stuff will set the price. I don't think we're about to see the US government setting up state-run marijuana farms. Certainly government regulation and taxes would factor into the price (just as they do with tobacco and liquor and, to a lesser degree, many other consumables), but it's pretty absurd to suggest that these factors would drive the prices so high that the current drug cartels would still want to keep selling even with all the massive disadvantages they would have in competition with legal agribiz (do the cartels bother trying to smuggle tobacco into the country? No; why not?). Right now, marijuana costs roughly $500-4000 per pound, depending on quality and location (e.g. prices are lower along the Mexican border). That's utterly absurd for an agricultural product; tobacco, by comparison, costs like $10-50 per pound at the retail end (barring extremes for very high-quality product). There's no way that even extremely intensive regulation could ever push legalized weed prices high enough for weed smuggling to continue to be a money-maker for the cartels (for instance, even if such regulation jacked up weed prices ten times higher than tobacco prices, which is quite unreasonable in it's own right, the cartels would only be able to make a small fraction of what they currently make by smuggling it in). And even if that sort of regulatory price influence was remotely plausible, the government would have a clear incentive to avoid creating it, since one of the main reasons to legalize drugs is to reduce the associated crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous D
EDIT: Plus the cartels get most of their revenue from cocaine and heroin anyhow, not weed.
This is what I was talking about before but david has a thick skull.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
"There are really no other medications that have the same mechanisms of action as marijuana. Dronabinol (Marinol) is available by prescription in capsules, but has the distinct disadvantage of containing only synthetic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) which is only one of many therapeutically beneficial cannabinoids in the natural plant. Interestingly, it is the most psychoactive of the cannabinoids and is the one that the Federal government allows to be prescribed!
Cannabinoids are now known to have the capacity for neuromodulation, via direct, receptor-based mechanisms, at numerous levels within the nervous system. These provide therapeutic properties that may be applicable to the treatment of neurological disorders, including anti-oxidative, neuroprotective effects, analgesia, anti-inflammatory actions, immunomodulation, modulation of glial cells and tumor growth regulation. Beyond that, the cannabinoids have also been shown to be remarkably safe with no potential for overdose."
edit: Syme I agree with you on almost everything you said except for your edit. Cartels do not make most of their money from coke and heroin, most of it comes from marijuana. I have heard people say anywhere between 60-85% of the money comes from marijuana. Also marijuana can get up to 6000+ a pound on the east coast for high quality.
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."
"education in pharmacology"?
so, like, more than everyone here....but less than a certified qualification?
as in...you googled more than they did?
Good point, I forgot an "in b4 ' you just used google too'
Also, I forgot to call you all "Google scholars" into that last post.
http://www.casualdiscourse.com/forum...1&d=1260812705
well it's good to know your training in pharmacology helps you understand the nuances of middle-eastern political conflicts
Man I am just googling and copy pastaing because I don't feel like writing about this for the one millionth time. You have been wrong about nearly everything you fucking said and you just come back saying how educated you are and I am so stupid. Who is the one trying to inflate their ego here? Oh and as an fyi I don't think anyone really takes this forum seriously.
edit: lmao nice book. Want me to start taking pictures of textbooks I have lying around too? Does it make me an expert in everything?
Oh damn I'm becoming predictable.Quote:
Originally Posted by DAVIDSDIVAD
To be fair on you, cuntface (I refuse to type your ridiculous username so I'm going with the hostile approach, it should be familiar to you), I personally think you've made a lot of very good, well thought out and interesting points in this thread (and this one alone).
However, you've still so far refused to refute any of the points which debase your bigger claims such as this:
Overall, you just come across as an arrogant prat. What's wrong with sharing/discussing/debating ideas? Even if they're ideas where we lack all the necessary facts. No one here thinks they're going to solve any world problems through the AI forum and no one really thinks they have all the answers (except maybe you).Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
Is there a better way we should be wasting our time on this site? Obviously you think using this site in the first place is a decent idea, otherwise you wouldn't be here at all. Or do you feel it's your divine mission to save us all from ourselves? Because, I gotta tell you, of all the people to magically convince us to go outside and live the lives we already lead quite well, you'd be the last.
edit: inb4 o no u didn't.jpg
google is just a bigger textbook
So.... do you have anything to say to the actual points I raised about the disadvantages of Marinol in regards to it's higher cost, slower onset time, oral route of administration, increased psychoactive effects, and lack of medically beneficial cannabinoids such as CBD and CBC? If your education has really endowed you with such deep knowledge, and we are really all such morons, I'm sure you would have no problems refuting those points if they are incorrect. Or are you just going to storm off all butthurt because Killuminati said you had a "thick skull"?Quote:
Originally Posted by DAVIDSDIVAD
EDIT: Yeah, yeah, we aren't doing anything to change the world by posting about it on CD.com, thanks for dropping that truth bomb on us. We all totally thought that CD.com was a place where very serious, important things happen and you have shattered our egos by pointing out that it's not. We definitely didn't realize that it's just a forum where people chat about topics that interest them in their free time. People who talk about political issues or current events due to their personal interest in those things definitely always think they are doing something of global importance by discussing them. Man, what we will do with ourselves now that you've blown away our illusions. Next you should run up to some guys standing around their water cooler at work on Monday morning chatting about the weekend's big news story, and scream at them "YOU THINK YOUR GRAND OBSERVATIONS ARE SO IMPORTANT BUT YOU'RE JUST PATHETIC!" It would be a worthy continuation of what you've accomplished here today.
FYI you are about the 500th poster who got angry and tried to play the "you guys think you're so great but you're not" card after becoming offended when CD posters didn't like you and/or agree with what you have to say.
Here is my highly intellectual on this matter
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...X4exDP3D00ubmQ
The only way I would ever smoke pot more then maybe once a year is if it were legal. Considering I am in California, this might become a high possibility in the 2010 ballot. The taxes the state could gain from legalizing weed seems to be interesting as well(over 1 billion annually if I'm not mistaken).