Legalizing Weed

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I don’t know exactly how harmful marijuana is to personal health.[/quote]

Do you know marijuana smokers ? I do . I know quite a lot. They are all productive members of society . Many are respected a couple are part of the Obama’s 1%. All but 1 are having health issues.all but one are what I would say are physically superior types. All of them are more empathetic types. All very social and well liked with the exception of one . None with one exception has had trouble with the law, well counting me 2 :slight_smile:

I subscribe to the theory that marijuana is not for every one . I believe there are connections made in the brain that can be very beneficial to some . I think as medicine it has more applications than aspirin . I also believe that it is a crime and morally unconscionable to deprive something that some one may benefit from in any way .

IMO we have people that have moral authority making public policy that are not honest, just catering to an aged voting block of the uninformed .Most policy makers have and many still smoke do pot

362

Pitt,

You think pot is a non problem. But when they pop up EVERYWHERE, they become one. The Feds are cracking down on pot shops here, the our LA City Council voted unanimously to reduce the number of pot dispensaries in the city. We will now have a public vote on the issue, and the voter sentiment is not in favor of pot shops.

We (California) got a glimpse of what legalizing weed would be like, and it was a huge let down. The degradation of the community was evident. Stop thinking this turned out to be like Amsterdam, think more of crack Harlem.

363

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Pitt,

You think pot is a non problem. But when they pop up EVERYWHERE, they become one. The Feds are cracking down on pot shops here, the our LA City Council voted unanimously to reduce the number of pot dispensaries in the city. We will now have a public vote on the issue, and the voter sentiment is not in favor of pot shops.

We (California) got a glimpse of what legalizing weed would be like, and it was a huge let down. The degradation of the community was evident. Stop thinking this turned out to be like Amsterdam, think more of crack Harlem. [/quote]

The despensary may be a problem . In my opinion the biggest problem is the price of weed . You can not take something as prolific as Ditch weed make it more valuable than gold and expect no problems

364

The problem is lack of regulating these places. Hundreds popped up right away, and when the city tried to crack down, the “we have rights” bullshit started. Now the Feds are dropping the hammer, thank God.

People are getting weed for very minor things, not terminal cancer, and that’s the main problem.

365

In my opinion it should be legal , sold like Whisky . Regulation is the problem . Every politician that thinks it should be legal sees it as a new source of tax revenue . It should be taxed . Did you know America had a huge campaign to eradicate Hemp ? Hemp grew every where it was not only the largest crop at one time it grew wild every where as well.

It’s fiber is superior to cellulose from trees for paper . It is also superior to cotton , dose not need any pesticides . Two huge industries that do not want to see Hemp legalized

366

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I don’t know exactly how harmful marijuana is to personal health.[/quote]

Do you know marijuana smokers ? I do . I know quite a lot. They are all productive members of society . Many are respected a couple are part of the Obama’s 1%. All but 1 are having health issues.all but one are what I would say are physically superior types. All of them are more empathetic types. All very social and well liked with the exception of one . None with one exception has had trouble with the law, well counting me 2 :slight_smile:

I subscribe to the theory that marijuana is not for every one . I believe there are connections made in the brain that can be very beneficial to some . I think as medicine it has more applications than aspirin . I also believe that it is a crime and morally unconscionable to deprive something that some one may benefit from in any way .

IMO we have people that have moral authority making public policy that are not honest, just catering to an aged voting block of the uninformed .Most policy makers have and many still smoke do pot[/quote]

During a time during grad school, my gi tract decided to get completely screwed up causing lots and lots of abdominal pain to the point that it was crippling. The first prescribed med given to me didn’t do much so during the time it took to figure out what was wrong, I know I couldn’t have gotten through grad school without the pot to sooth my stomach. At the very least, the government needs to open up legitimate ways to administer pot for genuine health problems.

367

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I don’t know exactly how harmful marijuana is to personal health.[/quote]

Do you know marijuana smokers ? I do . I know quite a lot. They are all productive members of society . Many are respected a couple are part of the Obama’s 1%. All but 1 are having health issues.all but one are what I would say are physically superior types. All of them are more empathetic types. All very social and well liked with the exception of one . None with one exception has had trouble with the law, well counting me 2 :slight_smile:

I subscribe to the theory that marijuana is not for every one . I believe there are connections made in the brain that can be very beneficial to some . I think as medicine it has more applications than aspirin . I also believe that it is a crime and morally unconscionable to deprive something that some one may benefit from in any way .

IMO we have people that have moral authority making public policy that are not honest, just catering to an aged voting block of the uninformed .Most policy makers have and many still smoke do pot[/quote]

During a time during grad school, my gi tract decided to get completely screwed up causing lots and lots of abdominal pain to the point that it was crippling. The first prescribed med given to me didn’t do much so during the time it took to figure out what was wrong, I know I couldn’t have gotten through grad school without the pot to sooth my stomach. At the very least, the government needs to open up legitimate ways to administer pot for genuine health problems. [/quote]

I use it when I am depressed and can’t figure out why , smoke a little and the issue comes right to the top. Ask Zeb and he will tell you it is the pot making me depressed.

368

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
@ZEB - I don’t believe you ever addressed the links I posted, perhaps you just missed them. [/quote]

I’ll take it one step further. No one, including you, has responded to the many links that I’ve posted.
[/quote]

My links were in support of my counter argument; you’re avoiding this I see…
[/quote]

And my links were in support of my argument. You conveniently ignored all of them.[/quote]

The fuck I did! I read them, I get it; you think that smoking weed causes lung cancer (just like tobacco btw), you think it lowers IQ, you think that marijuana, if legalized, would usher in a dark age of dope smoking darkness. I fucking get, you asshat. I don’t need to respond point for point on all of your bullshit links to understand your position, which is why I countered your position with evidence and studies of my own.

Did you get that, you clown? With evidence and studies of my own. So until you respond to my counter argument, you’re avoiding the issue.

Jesus christ, ZEB…grow the hell up.
[/quote]

You actually didn’t respond to my main points regarding consumption. I will repeat it just for you:

When a drug is legalized, legitimized and advertised there will be more consumption. This is not a theory it has been proven with alcohol. And in fact is one of the laws of capitalism.[/quote]

Bullshit.

But speaking of consumption and economics, Gary S. Becker (Nobel prize winning Economist) disagrees with you on the effects of consumption.

http://home.uchicago.edu/gbecker/Businessweek/BW/2001/09_17_2001.pdf
[i]It’s Time to Give up the War on Drugs
Gary S. Becker. Business Week. New York: September 17, 2001. , Iss. 3749; pg. 32.

Legalizing drugs is far from a panacea for all the distress caused by drugs, but it will
eliminate most of the profit and corruption from the drug trade. Ending Prohibition almost immediately cleaned up the liquor industry. To be sure, legalization will increase
drug use by, among other things, lowering street prices, but that can be partially offset
through sizable excise taxes on producers. In many nations, retail prices of cigarettes,
alcohol, and gasoline are several hundred percent higher than their wholesale prices
because of large “sin” taxes on them. The revenue collected from large taxes on drugs
could be used to treat addicts and educate youngsters about the harmful effects of many
drugs.[/i]

Dale Gieringer, Ph.D. also disagrees with you.

http://economics.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=economics&cdn=education&tm=20&f=00&su=p284.13.342.ip_&tt=2&bt=1&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.canorml.org/background/mjeconomics.html
[i]Economics of Cannabis Legalization

Marijuana legalization offers an important advantage over decriminalization in that it allows for legal distribution and taxation of cannabis. In the absence of taxation, the free market price of legal marijuana would be extremely low, on the order of five to ten cents per joint. In terms of intoxicating potential, a joint is equivalent to at least $1 or $2 worth of alcohol, the price at which cannabis is currently sold in the Netherlands. The easiest way to hold the price at this level under legalization would be by an excise tax on commercial sales. An examination of the external costs imposed by cannabis users on the rest of society suggests that a “harmfulness tax” of $.50 -$1 per joint is appropriate. It can be estimated that excise taxes in this range would raise between $2.2 and $6.4 billion per year. Altogether, legalization would save the taxpayers around $8 - $16 billion, not counting the economic benefits of hemp agriculture and other spin off industries.[/i]

So basically, the benefits of legalization FAR outweigh the perceived negatives of legalization. Increased consumption? Who gives a rusty fuck; prohibition doesn’t work. Using you argument, we should revisit a prohibition of alcohol, and place new prohibitions on caffeine, tobacco use, pop, bacon double cheese burgers, fries, corn dogs, and any other thing that’s “bad” for us as determined by the government.

We just need more government involvement, right ZEBY? Good grief…

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I thought that was rather kind of me to repeat my basic thesis just for you. Especially considering the fact that you are one of the top three biggest ass clowns on T Nation. And you are no doubt ignored by more people than the other two.

Now if you are able try to come back and address those specific points. If…you are able.
[/quote]

Oooohhhh SNAP! ZEB just called me a clown, whatever shall I do? LOL
And if people want to place me on ignore because they’re uptight honkey’s, then so be it, it’s their right to be uptight honkey’s.

Now that I’ve broken it down for you, with yet even more links, why don’t you get your ass in gear and respond to ALL of MY previous links. Your argument is shit, yet I breathlessly anticipate your response…

369

Re posted for the benefit of ZEB:

One study has been published in the U.S., in the journal Clinical EEG and neuroscience: official journal of the EEG and Clinical Neuroscience Society (ENCS), and shows that alcohol has a stronger effect on teen brain development than marijuana. The other is a study published in the Lancet, offering the results of substance classification by a number of U.K. professionals, purporting that alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana to individuals and to society.

http://blog.norml.org/2011/11/01/study-alcohol-is-“more-than-twice-as-harmful-as-cannabis”-so-explain-to-me-again-why-pot-is-illegal/

[i]Alcohol consumption causes far greater harms to the individual user and to society than does the use of cannabis, according to a new review published online in the Journal of Psychopharmacology, the journal of the British Association of Psychopharmacology.

Investigators at the Imperial College of London assessed â??the relative physical, psychological, and social harms of cannabis and alcohol.â?? Authors reported that cannabis inhalation, particularly long-term, contributes to some potential adverse health effects, including harms to the lungs, circulatory system, as well as the exacerbation of certain mental health risks. By contrast, authors described alcohol as â?? a toxic substanceâ?? that is responsible for nearly five percent â??of the total global disease burden.â??[/i]

http://scienceblogs.com/scientificactivist/2007/03/23/study-finds-alcohol-and-tobacc-1/

[i]Study Finds Alcohol and Tobacco More Harmful than Marijuana, LSD, or Ecstasy (Revisited)

The good news for the UKâ??s drug classification system is that the placement of marijuana in Class C appears appropriate. This is in line with the results of another recent study that found that smoking marijuana isnâ??t as dangerous as once thought. Things arenâ??t looking so good back in the US, though, where marijuana is still a Schedule I drug, despite potential medical uses. So, even though the UKâ??s system isnâ??t perfect, itâ??s beats what we have in the US, where the war on drugs continues to spin out of control.[/i]

Despite the fact that marijuana’s effects are less harmful than those of most other drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, it is the most common drug that people are arrested for possessing. U.S. marijuana policy is unique among American criminal laws in being enforced so widely and harshly, yet deemed unnecessary by such a substantial portion of the population.

370

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I don’t know exactly how harmful marijuana is to personal health.[/quote]

Do you know marijuana smokers ? I do . I know quite a lot. They are all productive members of society . Many are respected a couple are part of the Obama’s 1%. All but 1 are having health issues.all but one are what I would say are physically superior types. All of them are more empathetic types. All very social and well liked with the exception of one . None with one exception has had trouble with the law, well counting me 2 :slight_smile:

I subscribe to the theory that marijuana is not for every one . I believe there are connections made in the brain that can be very beneficial to some . I think as medicine it has more applications than aspirin . I also believe that it is a crime and morally unconscionable to deprive something that some one may benefit from in any way .

IMO we have people that have moral authority making public policy that are not honest, just catering to an aged voting block of the uninformed .Most policy makers have and many still smoke do pot[/quote]

I support legalization, and agree with many of the points you make, but a lot of the logic you use is faulty. In the past, I have smoked a LOT of sweet canna, as have most people in my area/culture. But anecdotal evidence is not the same as empirical evidence. Weed is not for everyone, but the general scientific consensus is that moderated consumption of cannabis and many tryptamine and phenethylamine based psychedelics has milder health and life consequences than most other recreational drugs, legal or otherwise, and all hard drugs (of which alcohol and tobacco are included, due to a relatively high risk of abuse and serious adverse health risks in the event of abuse).

You cannot make blanket statements about its efficacy as a medicine without explaining your position. Here’s why pot has potential for medical use:

Cannabis has painkilling properties approximately equivalent to 120mg codeine according to NIDA (i.e. a conservative estimate), yet has far less addictive potential, not to mention adverse side effects (unless you consider being high adverse :P) than opioid-based painkillers. Think about how many lives OxyContin has ruined. If pot works for someone, wouldn’t it be a better first-line therapy than taking the risk of a life-destroying opioid drug (even if opioids, used therapeutically, have a lowered risk of addiction)?

Barbiturate and benzodiazepine based sleeping pills also carry serious risk of addiction and serious adverse side effects, even when used in a therapeutic manner. Even SSRI sleeping medications, like trazodone for example, are risky. Although studies indicate short-term use to have an excellent safety profile, SSRIs as a drug class have been around for such a short time that there isn’t enough long-term data available yet to draw firm conclusions on the effects of long-term use. This is in direct contrast to cannabis’ long history of use and well-celebrated safety profile prior to its ban.

Cannabis also has demonstrated effects as an antiemetic and appetite-stimulant, and there are several drugs on the market today based on cannabinoids like dronabinol (synthetic THC) and nabilone (synthetic cannabinoid). The difference? These drugs cost a small fortune. Pot is cheap. I’m not against prudent use of pharmaceuticals, but it’s a cutthroat business just like any other. If they can make more money by keeping it illegal they will.

Fun fact: tryptamine based psychedelics like psilocin and ALD-52 (that’s shrooms and acid to you!) are at least equally effective as triptan drugs (like Imitrex or Zomig) at suppressing migraine headaches, and actually have a better safety profile too! Triptans are actually the result of pharmaceutical research into trying to make a tryptamine-based drug that doesn’t cause you to trip out, since they have been known to have anti-migraine effects for a long time.

371

Not sure if anyone actually read Zeb’s link on an earlier page… here’s the conclusion of the article he used to claim long-term marijuana use is harmful.

So modest long-term use is probably fine, it’s only extreme abuse of the substance over a long period of time that is a problem.

That sounds a little like… absolutely everything that we consume.

372

[quote]schism45 wrote:
Not sure if anyone actually read Zeb’s link on an earlier page… here’s the conclusion of the article he used to claim long-term marijuana use is harmful.

So modest long-term use is probably fine, it’s only extreme abuse of the substance over a long period of time that is a problem.

That sounds a little like… absolutely everything that we consume. [/quote]

Absolutely. My doctor told me a story once about a person who suffered from high levels of iron due to the massive amount of iron fortified cereals they ate while in college.

373

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
My doctor told me a story once about a person who suffered from high levels of iron due to the massive amount of iron fortified cereals they ate while in college.
[/quote]

LOL if you listened to your doctor you would have lost weight by now anyway…

You don’t get to jump in on page 13 and hit the reset button. I’ve been debating this topic for 13 pages, long before you jumped in, and now you want it all repeated just for little old you. That’s not happening. So I will tell you one more time. You can go back to page 1 or 2 where I began and you can try to refute my basic arguments. Short of that you can continue to prove why you’re the most ignored man on T Nation and continue to play the part of the village idiot, or you can scroll back and do some work.

I couldn’t care less either way.

374

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
My doctor told me a story once about a person who suffered from high levels of iron due to the massive amount of iron fortified cereals they ate while in college.
[/quote]

LOL if you listened to your doctor you would have lost weight by now anyway…[/quote]

My point still stands, and you’re struggling to respond, which is why you’re stooping to ad hoiminems.

[quote]ZEBY wrote:
You don’t get to jump in on page 13 and hit the reset button. I’ve been debating this topic for 13 pages, long before you jumped in, and now you want it all repeated just for little old you. That’s not happening. So I will tell you one more time. You can go back to page 1 or 2 where I began and you can try to refute my basic arguments. Short of that you can continue to prove why you’re the most ignored man on T Nation and continue to play the part of the village idiot, or you can scroll back and do some work.

I couldn’t care less either way.[/quote]

HAHA!

I tore the shit out of your consumption argument, and even reposted my links; you still won’t respond to them. This is you trying to slink out of the thread since you have no argument. You’re trying to paint me as not having an argument, while consistently avaoiding the argument. Know what that is? That’s you being a pussy.

Go on now, slink away…LOL

375

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
You don’t get to jump in on page 13 and hit the reset button. I’ve been debating this topic for 13 pages, long before you jumped in, and now you want it all repeated just for little old you. That’s not happening. So I will tell you one more time. You can go back to page 1 or 2 where I began and you can try to refute my basic arguments. Short of that you can continue to prove why you’re the most ignored man on T Nation and continue to play the part of the village idiot, or you can scroll back and do some work.

I couldn’t care less either way.[/quote]

HAHA!

I tore the shit out of your consumption argument, and even reposted my links; you still won’t respond to them. This is you trying to slink out of the thread since you have no argument. You’re trying to paint me as not having an argument, while consistently avaoiding the argument. Know what that is? That’s you being a pussy.

Go on now, slink away…LOL[/quote]

You’re a bigger idiot than I originally thought. Even a borderline moron would realize that if I didn’t want to respond I would not have gone on for 13 pages debating people far and away brighter than you on this topic (granted that’s not saying much). So don’t wear your arm out patting yourself on the back it is unwarranted. You are not my match on any topic be it the legalization of pot or anything else politically related. You’re just not smart enough.

Furthermore if you had read the entire thread you would realize that you did not respond to my many prior points. I have stated them and restated them. So far the only thing you “tore the shit out of” was the waist line of last years jeans. All you’ve done in this thread is what you usually do storm around name calling and make a general nuisance of yourself.

As for ad hominem attacks you are the king!

Once again, I’m not hitting the reset button for you. Where were you 13 pages ago when we were debating this issue inside and out? You wanted none of it did you? Now that the thread is on its last legs you decide to come in and revive it. Were you afraid to jump in earlier? Did you feel you needed more cover before you tried to make your (foolish) point? Regardless, I am not going to restate my arguments for you because you are too lazy to go back and read a dozen pages.

If you want to answer my primary argument go back to pages 2 through 12 and have at it. If you can actually refute my many points I will jump in again and respond. But your usual blow hard tactics won’t work.

So get busy and actually read the entire thread. Then post back regarding my specific points. If you do that I’m in. If you fail to do that and respond once again like an ignoramus I will do what about 10-15 of my peers on this site have already done and put you on ignore.

Got it?

376

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I subscribe to the theory that marijuana is not for every one . I believe there are connections made in the brain that can be very beneficial to some . I think as medicine it has more applications than aspirin . I also believe that it is a crime and morally unconscionable to deprive something that some one may benefit from in any way .

IMO we have people that have moral authority making public policy that are not honest, just catering to an aged voting block of the uninformed .Most policy makers have and many still smoke do pot[/quote]

Agreed.

I have known my fair share of stoners. I was in college not too long ago, and was the only one of my close group of friends that didn’t really enjoy getting baked. I can’t say it was great for them, but I’d bet the alcohol that we all drank so much of did far more to harm us than the weed did to them.

I know people who’ve smoked a lot, every single day, for years. Many are smart and all of them are at least moderately successful (i.e., they have a college degree and a descent job).

If they had been getting hammered every day instead of smoking weed, they would all be completely fucked, physically and otherwise.

377

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

It’s fiber is superior to cellulose from trees for paper . It is also superior to cotton , dose not need any pesticides . Two huge industries that do not want to see Hemp legalized[/quote]

A lot fo today’s paper is made from recycled cloth anyway. The dollar bill in your pocket used to be a shit covered bed sheet in a VA hospital.

But on a serious note, I feel like your post here has merit, in that other industries would want to prevent hemp from being legal, but isn’t the stuff you grow for hemp and the stuff you grow to get high basically two different things?

378

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

It’s fiber is superior to cellulose from trees for paper . It is also superior to cotton , dose not need any pesticides . Two huge industries that do not want to see Hemp legalized[/quote]

A lot fo today’s paper is made from recycled cloth anyway. The dollar bill in your pocket used to be a shit covered bed sheet in a VA hospital.

But on a serious note, I feel like your post here has merit, in that other industries would want to prevent hemp from being legal, but isn’t the stuff you grow for hemp and the stuff you grow to get high basically two different things?[/quote]

Nope. It’s all the same plant just not very potent strains of it. Paper and cotton would both go under if this were legalized. Notice the paper one of the posters put up pointed out that Weed decreases lung cancer…but they laced that at the bottom of the article after making a headlining story about a 1% chance of someone getting a testicular tumor even in minor risk cases.

You would have to purposely be ignoring the brainwashing to not notice it.

379

[quote]schism45 wrote:
Not sure if anyone actually read Zeb’s link on an earlier page… here’s the conclusion of the article he used to claim long-term marijuana use is harmful.

So modest long-term use is probably fine, it’s only extreme abuse of the substance over a long period of time that is a problem.

That sounds a little like… absolutely everything that we consume. [/quote]

Agreed. Though here’s a little something ZEB should be a little more careful with when he cites articles. Our current knowledge suggests that heavy cannabis use has a positive association with a decline in cognitive functioning. This assertion can be problematic at best, due to frequent difficulty in controlling confounding factors for any kind of study that relates to any socially “deviant” behaviour. Even so, I’m not one to deny evidence, and a mild cognitive decline seems likely. This is a very different thing from neurotoxicity, though cognitive decline CAN be a sign of neurotoxicity. Don’t fall for any correlation equals causation fallacies. There is currently no reason to believe that any of the major cannabinoids in pot are neurotoxic. Does pot alter the structure of the brain? There appear to be some neuronal changes in the hypothalamus, especially when pot is used heavily by those with developing brains. We’re still not sure what kind of effects this may translate to. In contrast, what legal drug with confirmed neurotoxic effects do 20+% of the N. American population have a problem with? Take a guess.

There’s also no reason to believe that said negative cognitive effects are permanent. This isn’t a terribly scientific explanation I admit, but 80% of the university grads in Canada would be absolutely retarded instead of running the place if this was the case.

380

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

It’s fiber is superior to cellulose from trees for paper . It is also superior to cotton , dose not need any pesticides . Two huge industries that do not want to see Hemp legalized[/quote]

A lot fo today’s paper is made from recycled cloth anyway. The dollar bill in your pocket used to be a shit covered bed sheet in a VA hospital.

But on a serious note, I feel like your post here has merit, in that other industries would want to prevent hemp from being legal, but isn’t the stuff you grow for hemp and the stuff you grow to get high basically two different things?[/quote]

Paper money? What is this new devilry?