Marijuana Should Be Legal

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
341

[quote]Gregus wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
It also has the potential for causing auto accidents, work related accidents, work absenteeism, increased workers comp. usage, and lung cancer. Wow, where do I sign up?

By the way, your glaucoma claim is full of shit. http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9811/13/marijuana.glaucoma/

MJ is a good thing for the population to have and use. Funny how even with heavy use i still get up at 5 AM everday, workout and never a porblem with it hampering me and causing me to not show up for work. I sleep so well on it i look forward to going to work in the morning.

Cannabis has done wonders for my personal relationship with my Fiancee. Couples fight they bicker and nothing puts an argument to an end and esatblishes peace like MJ. All the emotions die down and you can just talk and actually want to communicate. I wonder how may marriages would be saved because of this effect alone. The purging of bitterness from the mind is very valuable and doen by MJ.

Galucoma? Well let’s just say that the active ingredient and the only effective ingredient in glaucome medicine is nothing other then THC. That’s right THC, one of the over 800 active ingredients in MJ. And it works because of THC receptors.

Now why would the human body have THC receptors and cannabinoid receptors? The identical ones found in cannabis, why?[/quote]

I have noticed the cannabinoid receptor argument lately, and while I feel it is somewhat valid, you must realize that these receptors are a relatively new discovery. As such there are probably endogenous compounds that act on these receptors that science just hasn’t discovered yet. Someone even told me yesterday that chocolate has some effect on the CB-1 receptor in the brain. Perhaps that is why some people enjoy chocolate so much.

The argument is somewhat like saying, “our body has opiate receptors, so we should be using opiates all the time.” The truth is that our body produces many compounds that act on these receptors, it just so happens that other plants and exogenous chemicals act there too.

I support legalization, but the receptor argument, to me, just doesn’t carry much weight at the current time.

342

[quote]PharmD Pete wrote:
I have noticed the cannabinoid receptor argument lately, and while I feel it is somewhat valid, you must realize that these receptors are a relatively new discovery. As such there are probably endogenous compounds that act on these receptors that science just hasn’t discovered yet. Someone even told me yesterday that chocolate has some effect on the CB-1 receptor in the brain. Perhaps that is why some people enjoy chocolate so much.

The argument is somewhat like saying, “our body has opiate receptors, so we should be using opiates all the time.” The truth is that our body produces many compounds that act on these receptors, it just so happens that other plants and exogenous chemicals act there too.

I support legalization, but the receptor argument, to me, just doesn’t carry much weight at the current time.[/quote]

I actually give that argument more credit than you do. To my knowledge, we don’t currently know of any other substance, hormone or chemical that binds to that receptor. Also, considering the effects, it is nothing like other “drugs”. We are talking about a substance less addictive than caffeine chemically.

343

[quote]Professor X wrote:
PharmD Pete wrote:
I have noticed the cannabinoid receptor argument lately, and while I feel it is somewhat valid, you must realize that these receptors are a relatively new discovery. As such there are probably endogenous compounds that act on these receptors that science just hasn’t discovered yet. Someone even told me yesterday that chocolate has some effect on the CB-1 receptor in the brain. Perhaps that is why some people enjoy chocolate so much.

The argument is somewhat like saying, “our body has opiate receptors, so we should be using opiates all the time.” The truth is that our body produces many compounds that act on these receptors, it just so happens that other plants and exogenous chemicals act there too.

I support legalization, but the receptor argument, to me, just doesn’t carry much weight at the current time.

I actually give that argument more credit than you do. To my knowledge, we don’t currently know of any other substance, hormone or chemical that binds to that receptor. Also, considering the effects, it is nothing like other “drugs”. We are talking about a substance less addictive than caffeine chemically.[/quote]

Thanks prof.

BTW: Pete, I hear you on the opiates receptor. But htis is very different. The cannabinoid receptors are very munerous in variety, numbering in the hundreds. The cannabinoids in cannabis are the exact same chemical duplicates found in the body occuring naturally. Very different from the opiates receptors and much more involved. Also cannabiboids are there to improve body and brain function.

344

[quote]Professor X wrote:
PharmD Pete wrote:
I have noticed the cannabinoid receptor argument lately, and while I feel it is somewhat valid, you must realize that these receptors are a relatively new discovery. As such there are probably endogenous compounds that act on these receptors that science just hasn’t discovered yet. Someone even told me yesterday that chocolate has some effect on the CB-1 receptor in the brain. Perhaps that is why some people enjoy chocolate so much.

The argument is somewhat like saying, “our body has opiate receptors, so we should be using opiates all the time.” The truth is that our body produces many compounds that act on these receptors, it just so happens that other plants and exogenous chemicals act there too.

I support legalization, but the receptor argument, to me, just doesn’t carry much weight at the current time.

I actually give that argument more credit than you do. To my knowledge, we don’t currently know of any other substance, hormone or chemical that binds to that receptor. Also, considering the effects, it is nothing like other “drugs”. We are talking about a substance less addictive than caffeine chemically.[/quote]

What you say about addiction is true, and one of the main reasons why I support legalization. We actually do have endogenous substances that function like cannabinoids. The main endocannabinoid is anandimide. In functions marijuana and binds to the same receptor sites. But the fact remains that marijuana is not physiologically addictive for whatever reason.

345

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
We actually do have endogenous substances that function like cannabinoids. The main endocannabinoid is anandimide. In functions marijuana and binds to the same receptor sites. [/quote]

Thanks for the correction. Exogenous, however, is more what I was referring to. Good research though.

346

[quote]Professor X wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
We actually do have endogenous substances that function like cannabinoids. The main endocannabinoid is anandimide. In functions marijuana and binds to the same receptor sites.

Thanks for the correction. Exogenous, however, is more what I was referring to. Good research though.[/quote]

Thanks. Yeah, I don’t know of any exogenous sunstances that bind to those receptors. If there were, I’d imgaine their addiction potential would be similarly insignificant/nonexistant.

347

I’m not saying that the argument has NO validity, just that the discovery of the receptors happened fairly recently and we don’t know that much about the endocannabinoid system.

It is totally possible that there are no exogenous substances that act on these receptors, but IMO it is more likely that there are some out there, we just haven’t figured out which ones yet.

348

[quote]PharmD Pete wrote:
I’m not saying that the argument has NO validity, just that the discovery of the receptors happened fairly recently and we don’t know that much about the endocannabinoid system.

It is totally possible that there are no exogenous substances that act on these receptors, but IMO it is more likely that there are some out there, we just haven’t figured out which ones yet.[/quote]

But why does it matter if there are other exogenous substances that bind to endocannabinoid receptors besides marijuana?

349

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
PharmD Pete wrote:
I’m not saying that the argument has NO validity, just that the discovery of the receptors happened fairly recently and we don’t know that much about the endocannabinoid system.

It is totally possible that there are no exogenous substances that act on these receptors, but IMO it is more likely that there are some out there, we just haven’t figured out which ones yet.

But why does it matter if there are other exogenous substances that bind to endocannabinoid receptors besides marijuana?
[/quote]

It doesn’t really matter. I’m just commenting on the fact that some people are saying “why would we have these receptors if we weren’t supposed to use pot.”

Not all of the hundreds of cannabinoid compounds are psychoactive, so i just don’t think the argument is that great.

I am a huge proponent of legalizing it for the right reasons. It seems like those of us still posting here are all in agreement that the laws in place are not working and should be repealed

350

[quote]PharmD Pete wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
PharmD Pete wrote:
I’m not saying that the argument has NO validity, just that the discovery of the receptors happened fairly recently and we don’t know that much about the endocannabinoid system.

It is totally possible that there are no exogenous substances that act on these receptors, but IMO it is more likely that there are some out there, we just haven’t figured out which ones yet.

But why does it matter if there are other exogenous substances that bind to endocannabinoid receptors besides marijuana?

It doesn’t really matter. I’m just commenting on the fact that some people are saying “why would we have these receptors if we weren’t supposed to use pot.”

Not all of the hundreds of cannabinoid compounds are psychoactive, so i just don’t think the argument is that great.

I am a huge proponent of legalizing it for the right reasons. It seems like those of us still posting here are all in agreement that the laws in place are not working and should be repealed[/quote]

I agree. We’re not supposed to use or not use any substance. All of the evidence suggests that all of exogenous substances that cause changes in mood and physical changes work because we have receptors in our body that respond to chemically similar endogenous substances. It is the endogenous substances that have a purpose.

Endocanabinoid antagonists for example have been show to result in reduced appetite and mild disphoria in experiements. The conclusion thus being tha ananadamide and other endocanabinoids have an impact on mood and appetite. Not surprising then that marijuana can improve mood and increase hunger. Exogenous substances that are chemcially similar to endogenous ones can bind to the same receptors, typically with much greater effects.

351

Here is the bottom line:

Because America traditionaly frowns upon marijuanna, and because it’s been illegal for such a long time, legalizing it, regardless if it’s at once or over a period of years, won’t cause kids to lose any interest in it, simply because it’s a traditionally forbidden and frowned-upon substance. Just because it’s legal won’t change the fact that 90% of US parents have grown up with the belief that pot is the devil incarnated in plant form (I blame the 70’s).

The reason European kids don’t abuse alcohol is not just becaues it’s legal, but because the parents, and society in general, doesn’t have a problem with it, and DID not have a problem with it for a very long time. American pilgrim Protestants, on the other hand, spanked you with a mace if you were in the presence of alcohol. America is too traditionally against this type of shit to change their beliefs. And I can speak first-hand about European beliefs and alcohol, having been born in Romania.

So even if weed was legalized, do you think that parents would let their children smoke? Understand that most kids don’t smoke just because it’s illegal, but because American society has a problem with it. So in my opinon, legalizing marijuana will cause kids to smoke even MORE, because the risk of getting caught by the police is gone, but the risk of getting caught by your parents is still there, and you’re still rebelling against authorities, even if they’re not the type that sport Mike Mentzer moustaches.

Personally, I think marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, and MUCH less harmful than tobacco. It’s all messed up. Cigarettes should’ve been illegal before everyone got hooked on them, alcohol should have been legal for anyone over 16, and the same with marijuana.

But I’ve learned to stay out of these debates…

352

As has been pointed out, MJ hasnt been illegal in this country for that long. You do make some good points though…

353

[quote]danmaftei wrote:
But I’ve learned to stay out of these debates…[/quote]

But you are right into it NOW! Good points.

354

If anyone wants to look up some great discussions on the effects of drug prohibition go to the website for the Independent Institute. They have libertarian, consevative and left points of view.

Also one could google William F. Buckley Jr.'s old program The Firing Line to see a discussion on the subject. Buckley who is a father to the modern conservative movement has been in favor of drug legalization for decades. He is joined by several guests one being a consevative federal judge by the name of Robert Sweet who also believes it’s time to do away with drug prohibition.

These people are incredibly intelligent and put up air-tight arguements in favor of destroying drug prohibition.

One of the discussions on the Independent Institute goes into the dark side of trafficking carried out by government agencies. The very agencies who are supposed to stop drug trafficking and who put thousands of people in jail for crimes that are far smaller then those of these agencies. Controversial indeed but the Independent Institute should be given kudos for going where few people seem to tread.

355

I wish it was legal cause then I could grow the chronic dank. Puff, puff.