[quote]Apoklyps 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 
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.[/quote]
OK