Medical Marijuana--
 

WHat are your thoughts???

:D

For ACTUAL medical purposes like the relief of cancer pain, okay.

If they use it for post-surgical pain relief, then it will be counter productive for Gastric stapling patients. "Man, I'm hungry..."

My thoughts are it is a moot issue since it shouldn't be illegal for recreational use.

Wow! Nice of you to pop in just to discuss political stuff again. Bored, lately? ;)

As long as I don't have to smell it, I don't mind.

I have that opinion about farts. :p

Agreed, only if it is for serious pain.

Sure, why not. I used to drink to kill all sorts of pain.

I'm with Alex. Pot seems a lot less of a problem to society than drinking.

And I know plenty of people, including my HIV brother on a cocktail of "Drugs" (read: poison) that medical MJ helps. He has a prescription and card, and visits the pot stores.

There are a lot of other elicit drugs that have been used for medical purposes, so why not pot? It's because the burocrats have backed themselves into a corner with their "war on drugs" that they can't get out of with out admitting they were wrong, thats why!

From what I can tell, the active ingredient in pot, THC, is not nearly as effective when synthetic and swallowed as a pill. Anyone know if that is correct?

So, if they can convert some tobacco feilds over to pot, and taxed it, everyone would win, it seems to me.

Because enjoying it would be the worst thing that could happen.

Other "substances" have just as much "detrimental" effect if abused - alcohol, gambling, food, internet, video games, etc.

So, until those things are also illegal, I don't think drugs should be.

The substance is not the problem, and is too often blamed for the addictive behavior which is the real problem.

Case-in-point: Internet addiction. Ken's therapist now has many cases involving this, because it's finally becoming recognized as an issue. Over the last 10 years, I have personally known it to cause divorces, "infidelity", child neglect, spousal abuse, lost jobs, unplanned pregnancies (resulting in abortions or adoptions) etc. So, is the internet really to blame or the behavioral patterns of the person using it?

Same thing with pot.

The pot users I know are actually more functional than some of the internet users and gamblers that I know. In fact, I know of some people who spend more money in one gambling session than all of my pot using friends combined spend on the stuff over the course of many years.

And for those who will say, "Yeah, but it's just another thing that people can use to drive under the influence.", um, how about driving under rage (i.e. a gambler that's lost a bunch of money), or alcohol, or not paying attention to one's driving while unwrapping a burger, or checking email via a cellphone while driving?

Child/spouse abuse and neglect - alcohol contributes largely to that. So does internet abuse. So does gambling (caused by rage, or sending the family savings into the toilet).

It shouldn't be illegal period.

And I've never ingested it in any form..

even as second hand smoke?

I'll rephrase. I don't ingest marijuana for recreational purposes. If I am standing near people who are, yes, it has been ingested as 2nd hand smoke.

I made the disclaimer to preemptively rebuff comments of "well of course you don't, you probably smoke it".

I have never taken part of marijuana either. It had bad personal connotations growing up and I just never had any interest.

Apparently, I am allergic to MJ - the two times I tried it, I immediately horked.

But I too believe it should not be illegal in any form.

I'll smoke Kevy's and Alex's share. ;)

Don't get me wrong: I would like to be able to try it. I just don't have any inclination to barf again.

and yet you persist in eating our cooking

I have no problem with it. I know for a fact it can be used to help people with cancer. I lost a dear friend to it and he smoked so that he could still eat. He smoked before that too but when he really needed it I was thankful he could legally have it. In Oregon you can grow your own plants if you have a medical marijuana card. I have no idea how it works anywhere else.

I've known too many pot abusers and seen the damage recreational use can cause. Nothing you say to me can undo what I've seen.

But I think the benefits outweigh the risks under certain circumstances.

Alcohol. Gambling. Video games. Fast food. Sex. Fast driving. Cough syrup. Internet. Porn. Shopping.

And on and on and on. Which of those would you outlaw due to their rather strong potential to lead to life-ruining addiction/abuse?

We all know your staunch pot opposition, but it doesn't change the brilliantly sardonic point of CP's post. If someone is using marijuana for medical purposes, specifically a situation approved by Dr. Morrigoon ... would your approval be revoked if they also happened to enjoy the experience while benefitting from its medicinal elements??

No, I'm not denying that people find the experience enjoyable. What I'm saying is that the benefits must outweigh the significant risks. To me, recreational use does not do that, but relief of significant pain that is not successfully addressed by other existing drugs does.

And as far as the alcohol argument goes, until I get drunk sitting next to someone downing a pint, I don't find the two comparable. Remember my stance on tobacco.

Or is it you can only smoke pot for medicinal purposes, but you have to swear to not enjoy it.

I think you guys are painting me with an unfair brush here. Again, I'm not denying people might find it enjoyable. But I think its use carries significant risks, and therefore should only be used when necessary, not just desired.

So does alcohol. You may not get drunk sitting next to someone who is drinking, but if they get on the road after they've been drinking the risks are pretty damn significant.

Using (part of) GD's list, do you think that

• Alcohol should only be used when necessary, not just desired?
• Gambling should only be used when necessary, not just desired?
• Video games should only be used when necessary, not just desired?
• Fast food should only be used when necessary, not just desired?
• Fast driving should only be used when necessary, not just desired?
• Cough syrup should only be used when necessary, not just desired?
• Internet should only be used when necessary, not just desired?
• Porn should only be used when necessary, not just desired?
• Shopping should only be used when necessary, not just desired?

Of all those, I'd say cough syrup is the only one that I haven't seen cause severe damage in someone's lives from "recreational" use as well. So, I understand Goonie's concern, but fail to see why these things are different, if they do cause the same kind of damages, if not worse.

What I've personally witnessed or have known someone affected by each one:

• Alcohol - spousal abuse, child neglect, child abuse, early death, welfare
• Gambling - spousal abuse, child neglect, foreclosure, poverty, suicide, avoiding repayment of debts, welfare
• Video games - addiction, spousal neglect, child neglect, medical issues
• Fast food - medical issues, avoiding repayment of debts
• Sex - disease, rape, molestation
• Fast driving - "accidents", one fatal (not the erratic driver, of course)
• Internet - addiction, spousal neglect, child neglect, dishonesty, stalking
• Porn - addiction, sexual abuse
• Shopping - spousal abuse, child neglect, foreclosure, avoiding repayment of debts, poverty, welfare
• Marijuana - addiction, abuse, neglect, avoiding repayment of debts, welfare

Goonie, maybe if you shared with us exactly (don't need to give names/relations) what your negative experiences have been with pot, we might understand you more.

But, even with what I've seen in the list above, I don't think any of those things should be made illegal (well, fast driving already is, and that's only because it has a direct and immediate impact on other lives, so I do support that one).

Some cough syrups have elements that are extracted for use in making methamphetamine.

I think that was the point of the list. All of those items (with the exception of speeding, but you can do that legally in controlled situations) are legal. And addictive. And can cause harm

Either you are against all items that are addictive and can do harm or you aren't. The point I see is that it is ridiculous for one substance (alcohol is the perfect example) to be legal for recreational use and another (pot) is not. It is a hypocrisy.

Morrigoon, if you hadn't used CP's quote, there would not be this argument with your stance. But it seems to me you have clarified your position ... and acknowledge that people can enjoy their medicine ... much as if Mary Poppins were their nanny.


Yes, you can get inadvertently high from standing next to people smoking pot. Or, um, you could move away from them.


On the other hand, drugs and alcohol that impair one's ability to drive may defy your ability to get away from them, simply because you are not near enough to tell ... until it's too late!


So how does this affect your stance on alcohol vs. pot?

Bingo. :snap:

Well, in Morrigoon's defense, the difference is that second-hand smoke can get you high, while second-hand fumes don't really.



I think I de-bunked that pretty well with the whole locomotion ability of humans. But the difference is there nonetheless.

Hence why if it were legal, it could be sequestered to designated areas, just like tobacco. ;)

My brother just gave up WoW because he realized it had taken over his life. He's jobless, living at home, and he almost turned down a job offer because it was an evening position, and evenings are when the raids happen. Thank God he finally saw the light and cancelled his account, or he would never get his life together. Now at least he has a chance. It's exactly the same thing. For some people <addictive thing> is fun, for others, it is dangerous. That's called life.

And, no matter what it is, it does have an affect on the others around that person. (Neglect, etc.)

It's the person, not the substance.

I don't intend this to turn into "pick on Morrigoon", but the second-hand smoke argument is a bit of a red herring and was thrown in secondarily, so to speak, when the "addictive and personally harmful" argument was refuted.

Even I don't necessarily advocate 100% boundary free legal pot smoking. But private use in private residences and possibly designated pubic areas allowing people the choice to be around it or not? How is that any more harmful than alcohol or countless other vices?

It's not. But I understand Goonie's got personal experiences that affect her opinion. Just as someone who personally knows a gambling addict's horror tales might have enhanced personal feelings about that particular addiction.


But I would hope Morrigoon could acknowledge that's her personal bias, and that - in theory - other addictions are just as bad even though her emotions and history may not allow her to easily see things that way.


(And I'm wondering why, just as a curiosity, she doesn't feel as strongly about crystal meth, or for that matter, sex addiction, which had devastating effects on a close, close friend of hers. Or, well, maybe she does.)

Sex should be illegal. It'd make it even more fun.

Don't laugh. It may not be illegal (only recently though) ... but I tells ya, the taboo on boy/boy sex is part of what makes it more attractive to me than the more mundane (but equally fun) straight variety.











Oh, were we talking about pot? Heheh, let's get high sometime and I'll tell you what I really think about gay sex!

That statement is not necessarily true (as an absolute statement). Every person reacts differently to a given substance.

For example, when we took foster/adoption training many years ago, we were talking about drug babies. They said that you could have set of twins developing in the body of a woman taking meth. When they are born, it is possible (and it happens) where one baby is clean, with no problems, and the other has life-long battles with the after-effects.

I'm late to the game here, and a lot of good things have aready beend said, but I wanted to address the "enjoyment" dividing line a bit more with some personal diachotomies;

I used to enjoy alcohol. I started using it as medication and, while still enjoying it it became more need than enjoyment. At the end, I wasn't even enjoying it, but it was all about need.

I have taken post surgery pain meds as prescribed and, while they were necessary for pain management, they were also really sort of enjoyable. I certainly laughed lot while on Vicodine.

I have never understood why alcohol is legal and pot is not. Or for that matter why some for of opiates are given to you by your doctor and others are sold on the street for large amounts of cash.

Oh, and for those who claim that pot is not addicting, you are wrong. I know plenty of people who were addicted to pot. The physical effects of addiction my be different than those of alcohol or heroin (especially the withdrawal) but the addiction still exists.

One of the many reasons why I can't stand my old hometown. ;)

But, I don't blame the gambling at all. Some people can handle it and set limits without attitude issues. And others...... *shudder*

Whenever I used to go back and visit my parents, my mom loved to play bingo, so I'd go with her. In between sessions, she liked to play nickel machines. But, she always limited herself, and wasn't drawn into the whole, "I won $10! I bet I can win more! I feel lucky today! And look how big those jackpots are!" mind trap.

This is true, but there is a difference between direct addiction (i.e., a physical addiction to a particular substance) and an indirect addiction (addiction to a secondary effect of the substance or action, not the substance itself). Marijuana addiction falls more in line with the latter, which would also include things like gambling addiction or sex addiction or other behavioral addictions. It's not the act itself, but the feelings associated with it and/or the production of certain brain chemistry.

That's not to diminish the seriousness of any of those addictions. Addiction is addiction and can be devastating no matter what. And in some ways, the latter is MORE problematic since it's less likely to be tied to a particular substance or act but rather be indicative of an addiction-prone person. If what you're addicted to is the endorphine rush you get from gambling, then breaking the addiction isn't as simple as "stop gambling" because you may just find something equally destructive to replace that with.

But while academic distinctions on the exact nature of an addiction don't particularly console an individual and those they affect, when you're talking about larger effects and policy-making, it does matter. It matters that as a populace, we are significantly more likely to become addicted to heroin, cocaine, alcohol, etc. than marijuana. When you're talking about determining societal risk, as well as planning resources for how to address addiction problems, it's important to understand those differences and account for them. It's important to know that you're going to need a lot more methadone clinics than marijuana addiction counselors.

I support unfettered access by adults to whatever drugs they want for any purpose they want. If an adult wants to ignore his family and spend weeks at a time coked out in his basement. I'm ok with that.

If in the process of doing so, he puts his children at risk of physical danger. Then that should be punished, not the drug taking. If he puts others at risk by driving impaired (for whatever reason) then that behavior should be punished, not the drug taking.

I include in this all of the illegal drugs as well as all of the prescription drugs.

Yes, drugs will be the mechanism by which people do bad things to themselves and others. But there are manifold ways of doing that anyway.

This was on the radio on my way home from work. I found the timing (while coincidental) amusing. Probably NSFW

I've started tping in this thread a few times over the last day or so and have always ended up stopping.

I find myself becoming more and more libertarian in my thinking. I just hate the government telling people what they can and can not do. I also hate the government telling organizations what they can and can not do. I have oft fallen into the trap of government intervention as acceptable in cases that I think are OK or moral or whatever.

I think the government nanny state is a product of power hungry politicians, people who expect life to be fair, and people who won't take responsibility for their own actions. The concept of victimless crime i find more and more reprehensible.

I will never visit a hooker, but why outlaw it? I won't do drugs, but shouldn't an adult have that option? I doubt I'll be selling a kidney any time soon, but it's my freakin' kidney and I should be allowed to do with it as I please.

Leave people to make choices even if they are potentially harmful. Government can intervene if if it becomes harmful to others. An adults need to take the responsibility and/or consequences for their actions without whining that the government isn't providing enough for them.

Ack! I can't decide how much to submit to quotes!!!!!

Screw it.

I'm not sure that a physical addiction (alcohol, heroin, etc) is one that is "more likely" to happen than a "mental addiction" (gambling, pot, sex etc). If there was real concern about physical addictions in policy making, alcohol would not be legal.

I'm quoting in full because I can't mojo you and this post rocks. :)

Who says I don't feel strongly about crystal meth? But I don't hear people on this board calling for its legalization.

My issues with pot are less to do with addiction and more with what I've seen pot use do to people's behavior/personalities (when they're not high). The "Legalize Pot" people would have you think there are no side effects to pot use, but that is not true. It's the side effects, not the addiction, that are the issue. Perhaps the side effects are symptoms of an addiction, but I think it's more than that.

Well, like I said, you're entitled to be influenced by your personal experiences. But I daresay, as a regular potsmoker, I've known far more potsmokers than you are ever likely to have (and I'm not saying that categorically) ... and I've seen no such "not while high" side effects.


Everyone's mileage may vary.




Oh, and by the way, yes I am calling for the legalization of crystal meth. I don't know that it has any medicinal properties ... and it may be more quickly destructive than legal alcohol or legal tobacco, but it's still, imo, a matter of individual choice if you want to kill yourself with drugs.

No one has claimed (nor do I think they believe) that there no side effects to MJ. But I think the majority of the opposing opinion is: how is pot different than any other "legal" drug. There are side effects to alcohol, not dissimilar to MJ. We understand that you have been affected by someone who had a negative experience with pot and that is not being discounted. It is more of a general question of "why should pot be illegal when alcohol is legal?" (just focusing on one comparative substance).

Isn't it also possible that those behavioral/personality issues were pre-existing and not a result of pot use?

Well now I am going to jump in here, because you are off as to the nature of addiction.

Yes, you are right that meth is more quickly destructive, AND causes the disease of addiction, than many other drugs out there. Meth causes an incredible high which keeps you awake, makes you feel powerful, makes you horny as hell, but eventually gives you the "fvck-its" for your life, causes your body to destroy itself due to lack of sleep, permanent memory loss, permanent brain damage, paranoia and hallucinations.

I have heard hundreds upon hundreds of stories where people were people dabbled with alcohol and/or other drugs, but it was meth that finally brought them to their knees (or six feet under). I'm not waxing poetic here, I've known more people to die in the last three years than I've ever experienced in my 27 years prior, and it is heartbreaking. For those who think that using drugs is something that only affects them, next time there's a funeral I'll invite you along just for kicks.

Addiction is about having lost the power of choice. It is NOT a matter of "wanting to kill yourself with drugs"-- if there is any kind of "want", it's caused either by the drug itself, by the consequences of using, or by other issues like depression. Or many of those people don't WANT to die and overdose, which puts its own burden on society. But with meth you cross a line so quickly and you don't realize that you've "chosen" to have a disease or that you've "chosen" to die. Yes, you've made a mistake. Yes, you didn't think about the full consequences and now you'll have to live with them. But why make it so easy?

I do think that pot should be legalized but ONLY because a) the effects that pot has are relatively mild and/or b) it has medicinal purposes. Yes, you can get addicted to anything, but if alcohol is legal, pot should be too. It's a drug-by-drug basis, not a blanket.

What do you mean you don't realize you've chosen? Is that like the people who try heroin and don't realize they've chosen?

I don't know how to feel about this. Clearly I would want such substances to be branded with the most dire warnings, releases needed to be signed, layers upon layers of skull-and-crossbones packaging with 70 real-life horror stories to be read before you can get to the goods.

But I still want everyone to be free to do as they wish to their own bodies.


It's a terrible balancing act. But I can't go all hypocritical and say that MY drug should be legal and someone else's should not.


And I understand your thing about the non-blanket, drug-by-drug basis. But who makes those decisions for us???

I'll call for its legalization.

It's not that I don't think there are side effects. Just that the existence of side effects is not, in my opinion, sufficient reason to criminalize it.

Yes, I've known people who have killed themselves with (or, if you prefer: been killed by) drugs. Doesn't change my opinion on whether adults should be allowed to do them. Similarly, I've known a person killed by hang gliding and it doesn't change my opinion on whether they should be allowed to do that. And my dad was killed by smoking at 47 but I am still fine with adults choosing to do that.

If the current fad was injecting Clorox directly into the hippocampus causing immediate death, I would still be fine with it being a legal decision for adults to make. I would, however, make it illegal to drive a car while doing it.

Wimp

I'm ok with meth and heroin being illegal. Full disclosure - I have never tried either. But it seems to me that at it's best, the concept of making a substance illegal is borne of the society saying in a nearly full chorus, "this is probably not good for us." I can dig that to a degree, but only in extreme cases like those.

To me it's all about percentages. What percentage of pot users are still productive, healthy members of society? A high percentage.

Nope, sorry. Can't abide ANYTHING that's based solely on Mob Rule.


Gays would still be burned at the stake, btw, under such conditions. There's plenty of places where the full chorus would sing Hallelujah as the flames consume.

How about Laudanum?

There should be varieties of Coca Cola with it!




New Coke Zero consciousness.

Wow....look what i started.....lol

What about Edibles? or Pot used in a Vaporizor?

I am not saying it should be used walking down Main Street USA, but in ones own home, or specified places. You can't just Drink anywhere you want to either. Same with Smoking.

Last Year it is estimated 10,000+ people were killed or died because of Alcohol related disease or accedent. ZERO died because of Pot.

Errr, and your source for that patently ridiculous stat?

Jeeez... Made me go look that up... ;)

http://www.medicalmarijuanaprocon.or...athreports.htm

This brings up an issue, though.

There is a trend to lace MJ with other drugs to make it addictive. So when doing MJ, three is usually another drug involved without the knowledge of the user.

Trend? Hardly. It happens, but is not as widespread as after school specials would like you to believe.

Oh, and it happens ONLY because it's illegal. That's like saying it should remain illegal because it supports drug dealers and gets people killed over drug deals gone wrong. Issues that dissolve once legal.

And Pan, I can't take seriously any report that says "Zero or nearly zero". It's one or the other and if they're being that vague, it makes the whole thing highly suspect. Sorry, I prefer hard data to support my causes, not spin.

I don't consider myself to be an expert, and perhaps the seminar presented at the school my kids go to was trying to scare us (and I was scared, believe me - the organization was called "Not my Child"), but they said it is actually a growing trend that is far more prevalent than known to the common user.

I would say it that sort of thing doesn't happen that often - simply because that's something people are going to be paying extra for. It's not something they're going to give away by accident. Not that I condone MJ for teens though.

For consenting adults though? What's the big deal? It's so similar to alcohol - can be used for good or evil.

Well, there's a patently false-on-its-face statement if ever there was one.


How can a trend remain invisible to the common user? Um, I smoke a lot of pot (ok, not nearly as much as I used to ... you couldn't call it a lot nowadays). I'd have noticed if there was a trend ... ever in the 30 years I've been smoking - to lace marijuana with other drugs. Pure bullsh!t scare tactics worthy of 1950's parastupidnoia.

Girl I knew in high school smoked a joint laced with something else. Ended up with permanent brain damage. She presented very similar to a stoke victim. Mostly paralyzed on one side. Had to relearn how to eat, talk, basic functions. It was very sad.

Like I said, I'm no expert. I am not a drug user so I haven't the desire to research beyond what I've been told.

you mean like they did with tobacco?

The problem with the libertarian argument in favor of legalization is that it is not truly libertarian. I have very few, if any, cases involving violent or property crime where the defendant did not have a background of substance abuse, if not necessarily in his short life than in his parents'. When the call is for locking these people up for life after their nth offense, the cry is usually for more treatment programs, etc., not leaving them to the consequences of their "choice."

I have no problem with having drugs illegal as a conceptual matter. Ideally, the decision is based on weighing the potential social harm against the impingement on the freedom to be an idiot, which seems to be the only freedom we cherish these days. It's like a speed limit. The main argument against criminalization in this area to me is that criminalization has spawned a huge criminal enterprise. However, I'm not sure that eliminating the number of people killed in drug wars would not be outweighed by the number of people who, no longer deterred by criminal sanction, kill themselves using drugs.

And, of course, there is the whole alcohol conundrum.

And what if it's an equal amount, Stangler? Wouldn't it be "better" to have 10 people commit suicide than have the same 10 people be murdered?


Besides, I believe it's everyone's right to take their own life, and they are in charge of their own life. It's no one's right to take another person's life.

I don't have a problem with marijuana legalization, provided that there are strict laws about not operating vehicles or machinery (or showing up to work) stoned.

Though I've smoked it a few times in my life, I don't particularly enjoy it. I find myself using less and less "medication" the older I get (including alcohol/drugs/food/TV/etc) and more and more things that put me into action instead, like exercise, or journaling, or fresh air. Call me new-agey if you want, but I'm feeling pretty good lately.

I'm not really interested in any other drugs being legalized, though. I don't want something as destructive as meth or heroin to be easily-accessible. Sure, anything can be misused - but reading, for instance, Freakonomics' chapter on crack... I just don't really want to encourage destructive behavior with things that can be so easily destructive.

But, yet, alcohol - which is probably the MOST destructive of substances (or possibly tobacco) remains legal.

I know WHY alcohol will remain legal, I just don't get why the other drugs shouldn't be as well.

Perhaps, but I think it's very easy for people to mistake the effects that drug use has on one's personality as something emanating from the person's natural personality instead.

Because the main result (when not high) of regular pot use that I've observed is wild mood swings (the kind that lead to dangerous or violent behavior), I can see how someone might mistake that as being a natural personality flaw, rather than a side effect of someone's use of pot.

Wild Mood Swings? Dangerous or Violent Behavior?


Sorry, Cindy, but these are NOT things endemic to marijuana AT ALL.

If the person or persons you know had these reactions to pot use, then there was something specific to them which resulted in these completely oddball and totally atypical reactions.

I gotta side with iSm on this one. Those are not typical reactions to MJ.

I'm not ganging up - I swear - but I have to throw in a I agree to the boys.

Have you ever heard of someone OD-ing on pot?

And mood swings / violent behavior are completely typical of alcohol. Yet it's legal. The complete peace and tranquillity associated with pot? Illegal.


Yeah, our drug laws are beyond fvcked up.

I dont know that (beyond fragging your lungs unto non-functioning status) its even possible before passing out altogether. any withdrawls encountered are (from experience) far and away more psychological than physical (that is, akin to taking away a babies 'binky' )

I am sure that there have been instances where someone HAS had outbursts of wild mood swings and dangerous or violent behavior - in fact we have one reported case of it here on the board (I do not doubt Morri's take on the situation), and I am sure that in the course of history, there have been others. But it would be the exception and definitely not the rule.

Any drug can have differing effects on different people (see my previous post about drug baby reactions).

And those aren't even the numbers that include Alcohol and Tobacco related deaths. Even cancer deaths are no-existant. The average cigarette smoker will smoke 20 cigs a day, 10-15 drags per cig. Pot Smoker? Far less drags, far less tar, zero additives, etc...

Speaking of additives.... This is a false rumor/wives tale/urban legend of the highest order. It was said when I was in High School, the dealers were lacing MJ with Cocaine or Herion. Lace a $2 joint with a $100 a gram substance? Never happened.

I do know of people who would lace thier own stuff.

But even IF MJ was laced, all the more reason to legalize it, or buy Medical MJ, as you know it is clean.

Multiple people.

I stopped drinking Coke because I hear it makes black men sterile.

Perhaps they were dangerous and violent people to begin with and pot helped them keep their emotions in check.

That's the only thing I can figure because I've known dozens of people who have quit pot cold turkey and I have never seen anything remotely like you describe.

As for mood swings, pot makes me incredibly paranoid. It has a VERY negative effect on me.

I certainly have known people it can have a negative effect on. My mom tried it once when I was very little and hated it. Made her very paranoid as well. So, obviously it isn't for everyone.

But the effects that Morrigoon describes happened when the person wasn't smoking. That's the part that is news to me.

So you're afraid you will turn black and sterile?!






Hey wait a minute, you're the guy who doesn't want kids, I say drink up Shriner!!

I didn't know Kevy smoked pot. :cool:

I sense a little bit of silliness in this thread. I'm all for legalization of drugs, but to argue that there are no real adverse effects of pot is plain stupid. I wouldn't knowingly get into a car driven by someone under the influence. I've experienced several friends disappear into a lethargy brought on by their incessant pot use. I've terminated business relationships with stoners because of their unreliability.

The argument that these people probably had those traits (or a tendency toward them) is as valid as saying that someone who drinks alcohol and acts inappropriately "had it in them anyway". Altered thinking can and often does lead to dumb decisions.

This is true and I don't think anyone would argue that there is zero chance of negative side effects. It's a matter of likelihood and root cause. Pot COULD lead to serious permanent alteration of mental state, but most evidence suggests that it does so in the small segment of people who happen to be wired in a way that pot triggers it.

To me, it's like wanting to outlaw rollercoasters because of the aneurysms people have had. Sure, if those people hadn't gotten on a rollercoaster they probably wouldn't have died. And the rollercoaster definitely had a direct contributing role in their death. But does that mean that rollercoasters are inherently dangerous?

I'm on the same page as you, GD, which is one reason why I'm for legalization. I'm just calling shenanigans on the "no adverse effect" argument that some people in this thread seem to want to embrace.

I'll echo MP - I've definitely seen friends become so mentally-addicted to pot that they let their productive, happy lives float away. Lost jobs, lost friends, lost opportunities, lost drive... no, I don't think it should be illegal, but I think it definitely can be misused. As anything can. Food, sex, work... yeah, we can't make those illegal. But we can try to encourage people to use them well.

I think you could say that there are very few things you can do that don't have the possibility for some adverse side effect. I hope I wasn't suggesting otherwise - just that in the grand scheme of things I don't see what the big deal is for a consenting adult.

There are adverse effects to anything not done in moderation. 'Stoners' are unreliable. So are Alcoholics. You use the term incessant. that is the key. Some people will always go over the edge. It hapens with any addiction. Addiction to pot is purely a mental addiction rather than chemical. And it is rare. There are FAR more alcoholics which is BOTH physically and mentally addictive than stoners out there.

Tobacco and Alcohol are actually quite hard to produce. Easier to control and tax by the government.

The call Marajauna, weed, because it can be grown anywhere.

I've got so many problems with the statements made in this post I don't think I can even begin to refute.

Here's the deal:
The people that are pro-legalized marijuana are too stoned to organize themselves. The people that are anti-legalized marijuana probably should smoke lots of it and chill out.
:)

Inability to stop once started on a run, or inability to stop despite serious negative life effects, perhaps. But "incessant" is not the key.

Except that once the physical withdrawal from alcohol/meth/heroin/benzos/etc. stops, you STILL have the disease of addiction, same as any pot smoker. The physical aspect of it has a smaller connection than you might think. Why is it so hard to quit smoking? It certainly isn't the physical withdrawals -- you're over that in three days.

I don't think the case is closed on pot being a "purely mental" addiction. And honey, pot addiction is NOT rare. Not at all.

For me it comes down to this.

If:

1. I enjoy it
2. I can use it without harming anyone physically
3. I can use it without harming anyone socially
4. I can hold a job, keep my house clean and be a responsible human being
5. I don't use it every day
6. I feel fine without it
7. The majority of users say yes to all the above

How can you justify taking it away?

Awww... clean house too?

I trim the list to:

2. I can use it without harming anyone else physically

Depending on the nature of the social harm I'd be willing to take into account:

3. I can use it without harming anyone else socially

All of the others I consider irrelevant to whether I have any say in whether another person can do something they choose to do.

No, please begin. I really am always interested in your insights on alcoholism. And it would be an education because, as of now, I am in complete agreement with Pan's statements which are tasking you to refute.

There's nothing inherently wrong with alcohol. There's nothing inherently wrong with THC. They both have beneficial and detrimental uses. Recreational use of either can be considered one of the beneficial uses, until it's not.

Banning these substances is silly, as is banning any substance that any adult may want to use for any reason (that doesn't harm others).

To reiterate my opinion about this thread: I find the some of the arguments being but forth that marijuana is "harmless" as ridiculous as the arguments against the drug.

It's not a panacea. I'm wondering if I'm not being clear, or if a couple of the responses to my comments are being produced as the result of some kind of chemically-induced haze.

I must have missed the argument that marijuana is harmless. Rather, I think the argument goes more like it's so relatively harmless compared to legal drugs and all other illegal drugs that it's de facto harmless.

Eh, maybe I skimmed. But I think the harms have been laid out and admitted. Smoke of any kind is bad for your heart and lungs and other biology. Pot can be habit-forming. Pot can adversely affect your ability to handle a car or other heavy machinery, and thus be dangerous. Pot can make someone either lethargic or paranoid, depending on their individual reactions ... but those are not uncommon adverse reactions.

I think I've covered it. How many pages do you have for the list of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, crystal meth, heroin, cocaine, valium, vicodin, and on and on and on?



I don't think anyone's saying marijuana is harmless. But it's likely less harmful than milk.

Got Pot? (tm) :D

I wonder if my frustration with this thread parallels the incredibly slow action in the movement to decriminalize or even legalize pot.

You have, in me, a person who has lots of first- and second-hand experience with drugs. You have someone who believes wholeheartedly in everyone's right to choose.

I believe that the argument of the potential negative effects of THC have nothing to do with the argument at all.

But if you need to convince me that pot is "less harmful than milk", or that there are "zero pot-related fatalities" or that "alcohol is worse than pot because it's physically addictive," then you're trying to make me agree with something that I just don't think is true - or need to believe is true to have me on your side.

If you want to enjoy your drugs - go for it. But please don't make me have to agree to the above pro-drug arguments to support you in your pursuit of happiness.

“You know, I went to Haight-Ashbury expecting it to be this brilliant place, and it was just full of horrible, spotty, dropout kids on drugs.” - George Harrison

Whoa, I'm not trying to make you believe anything. I just wanted to express disagreement with your blanket statement that Pot is being portrayed by its proponents in this thread as a completely harmless substance.

I will admit some people have downplayed any potential harms, but I don't think even the most ardent proponents have claimed there is zero harm. The closest thing I recall reading was Pan's claim to have read a statistic that there have been no deaths attributable solely to marijuana use.


But when I babble on, I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion ... merely stating my own.

I always find the worse thing about "pro" arguments is the complete dismissal of the cons of said argument . I find that sort of approach tends to invalidates the original pro argument

But who has done that here?

I think many people have posited that Morrigoon's personal experiences are extremely unique, but I don't think anyone else has dismissed the "con" side. The drawbacks enummerated in my post above have been recognized, but claims that strain credulity or the vast resevoir of personal experence have been challanged.

That's not the same as dismissed.

I just scrolled back a page and didn't review the entire thread. I believe there are other blanket statements which are profoundly ignorant.

I think pot should be legalized, but, really, to deny or dismiss the negative effects that smoking pot has on a person's mental and physical well being is just irresponsible.

Other than using Alcohol to sterilize objects what are it's benefits? It's damage fills far more cemetaries than Pot ever has. Pot has several medical benefits.

And I do understand those with addictive personalities must use EXTREME caution or avoidance but that is up to the person to know where they are when it comes to the substance or behavior. Legal or not. If they do not have a grip on their behavior patterns and are on constant awareness they can become addicted to gambling or sex as easy as addiction to pot.

Once again, i restate that there is no chemical dependence to Marijuana that I have ever seen from a reputable medical journal. It has no physical withdrawls, only mental addiction. Thus it Does have mental withdrawls, but so does stopping gambling or unwanted sexual behavior.
---------------------------------

"Nobody has ever died from marijuana that wasn't shot by a cop"
-Jack Herer, ~ Emperor of Hemp

--------------------------------

:cheers:

On a side note- I do not use marijuana, it gives me panic attacks. But having BOTH of my parents go through cancer, i cannot see why it is illeagal

here...

Pro and Con...

http://www.medicalmarijuanaprocon.org/

Pan, thanks for all your research. You have convinced me.

The very existance of an "addictive personality" is still actively debated in the medical, neurobiological and psychology communities. Some would say that EVERYONE has the ability to develop an "addictive personality".

Personally, in my own experience, I don't believe that such a blanket personality trait exists at least in the sense that either you have it or you don't.

Well, to be frank, alcohol has been shown to have benefits to the heart, if imbibed in moderation. I think this is mostly true of red wine. Not sure if it applies to other types of booze ... but if so, far less so. At least by today's subject-to-constant-change medical and scientific evaluations.

I don't think pot has any such benefit. However, it seems to have benefit for sick people, whereas alcohol does not.


So, well folk - get drunk ... and sick folk - get stoned. :cool:

I think there's such a thing as a non-addictive personality. So maybe the inverse is true.


But I don't know. I just know one exists. That its opposite does too is just an assumption on my part.

Maybe I wasn't clear. It's not an either/or thing but one that can and may (or may not) develop over time. I did NOT have an "addictive personality" for 30 years. What happened?

Purely on a logical level, the harmfulness of one thing does not change the harmfulness of another. One thing is very harmful. One thing is somewhat harmful. The very-harmful doesn't negate the somewhat-harmfulness of the other. It simply means they are both harmful in different ways to different degrees.

This is a totally ridiculous comparison, but the "not AS bad for you" statement seems to me a bit of a ridiculous defense, so I'm going to go for it.

Dude A shows up late for work every day for a month. Dude B plays hookey and forgets to call in once. Dude B is probably getting a warning, maybe fired. But that doesn't mean Dude A isn't going to get a talking-to about his chronic tardiness.

I was going to go with murder and rape, but it struck me that those are crack crimes, not pot ones, heh.

(ETA: maybe that was poor humor. I was being glib.)

Oh, I see. I wonder if it's like adult-onset allergies. That's rampant. Perfectly immune for 30 years, then OMG, allergic to everything floating in the air.

Yes, the body changes over time. The body's reaction to things will evolve.



Makes things much more difficult, and only slightly more interesting.

What if I can't decide how I feel, can I do both?;)

I do believe that some people are more prone to addiction. I had a friend once who was a walking addiction magnet. You name it, and he was addicted to it at one time or another. His big three were booze, cigarettes, and sex; and he never had less than two of those three addictions at any given time. And, If he tried to quit one, then he'd usually get hooked on something else.

He knew he had a problem, but he just didn't give a fvck. I still wonder what became of him....

Booze, Smokes, and Sex..... Ahhh... The Vices of the Gods....well The Rock Gods anyway. Some of which are Dead from those very things.