Marijuana: the non-hate thread...

[CivilLiberty]

Then you have my utmost sincere apology....but to take the oppositions opinion makes one wonder!

Apology accepted.


The reason I focus on this is that the "DRUG WAR" is probably the greatest threat to liberty and freedom we face, PLUS it represents nearly 100 billion a year in wasted government expenditures that make the problem of abuse WORSE.

Let's talk about gun control for instance. Why do the liberals harp on this so much? SIMPLE. From the FAQ:

GUN CONTROL: We have stricter and stricter gun control because the crime wave that rides on prohibition has caused huge public outcry. Rather than focus on the cause of crime (socioeconomic factors of the drug war are a major component), the public and legislators lash out at gun owners.

CRIME: Crime is higher as a result of the war on drugs. In particular, homicides have skyrocketed (10 per 100,000 - the only other time the homicide rate was so high was during alcohol prohibition).

INCREASED DRUGS IN SCHOOLS: Drug use INCREASED 7 fold among 12-17 year olds after the modern War on Drugs started. The economics of prohibition favors the targeting of youths. Drug dealers don't ask for ID.

GRAFFITI: Gang tagging creates an enormous graffiti problem causing millions of dollars in damage every year. The gangs are a product of drug prohibition.

PAY PHONES: Pay phones no longer accept incoming calls. Perhaps now in these days of cell phones, it's not as much of an issue, but it's an inconvenience we all must bear as a result of the drug war.

STREET BARRICADES: In an effort to reduce street dealing, many residential areas (at least in large cities) have road blocks preventing through traffic on side streets. For local residents of such areas (I am one) it makes traveling to and from one's home very difficult, A product of the drug war.



Andy

 

[dilloduck]

Apology accepted.


The reason I focus on this is that the "DRUG WAR" is probably the greatest threat to liberty and freedom we face, PLUS it represents nearly 100 billion a year in wasted government expenditures that make the problem of abuse WORSE.

Let's talk about gun control for instance. Why do the liberals harp on this so much? SIMPLE. From the FAQ:

GUN CONTROL: We have stricter and stricter gun control because the crime wave that rides on prohibition has caused huge public outcry. Rather than focus on the cause of crime (socioeconomic factors of the drug war are a major component), the public and legislators lash out at gun owners.

CRIME: Crime is higher as a result of the war on drugs. In particular, homicides have skyrocketed (10 per 100,000 - the only other time the homicide rate was so high was during alcohol prohibition).

INCREASED DRUGS IN SCHOOLS: Drug use INCREASED 7 fold among 12-17 year olds after the modern War on Drugs started. The economics of prohibition favors the targeting of youths. Drug dealers don't ask for ID.

GRAFFITI: Gang tagging creates an enormous graffiti problem causing millions of dollars in damage every year. The gangs are a product of drug prohibition.

PAY PHONES: Pay phones no longer accept incoming calls. Perhaps now in these days of cell phones, it's not as much of an issue, but it's an inconvenience we all must bear as a result of the drug war.

STREET BARRICADES: In an effort to reduce street dealing, many residential areas (at least in large cities) have road blocks preventing through traffic on side streets. For local residents of such areas (I am one) it makes traveling to and from one's home very difficult, A product of the drug war.



Andy

So you can guarantee that life will be better if we legalize pot?

 

[CivilLiberty]

well by all means----lets get some more folks out there who have impaired judgement do to a chemical. Can't have enough people whose brains dont work right !

Dillo, how is your comment even relevant to my post?


Andy

 

[dilloduck]

Dillo, how is your comment even relevant to my post?


Andy

Which post ya talking about?

 

[Gunny]

Gunny, I didn't "leave out" anything - I was making a direct comparison to alcohol, in response to your statement that a still previous statement that I made that WAS objective that you claimed was "bullshit".


In context, I am overall objective.

But again, let's examine the big picture:

How many people die from the health effects of marijuana use each year? Zero.

How many studies are or have been done on the subject? My guess would be Zero.

How many die from aspirin? 1,200

All other illegal drugs combined: 4,500

Percentage of illegal drug deaths where alcohol was a factor: 70%

All NSAIDs (pain relievers like Advil)? 8,000

All prescription drugs combined? 64,000

Alcohol? 110,000

Tobacco? 350,000

Cite: NIDA/CDC/US Census death statistics.

According to Surgeon General Koop, what is the order of physical addiction, from most to least?

Nicotine (tobacco)
Heroin
Cocaine
Alcohol
Caffeine
Marijuana


"Addiction" is a weighted and often misused term. Really, "addiction" describes a psychological condition that occurs in some individuals. Physical Dependance refers to the conditions that case physical "withdrawal symptoms" upon ceasing use of a substance. Addiction and physical dependance are two separate issues. While physical dependance can support addiction, one can be addicted without physical dependance, and conversely, one may develop a physical dependance and not become addicted.

From a point of observation, one might be interested in the number of people that try or use a substance occasionally, and those that may become "abusive" and/ or "addictive" in their behavior.

See also:

http://www.peele.net


According to NIDA and CDC studies the percentage breaks down to approximately:



15%-20% of the people that use cocaine or heroin become abusers/addicts. The rest are recreational.

10%-15% of the people that use alcohol become abusers/addicts.The rest are recreational.

5%-10% of the people that use marijuana become abusers/addicts.The rest are recreational.




All for now.


Andy

I haven't commented on whether or not marijuana is addictive to this point. I don't know that it is physically addictive. It can be as psychologically addictive as anything else depending on the user's predisposition to psychological addiction.

Again, I will go back to the experiences of being young-n-dumb (and somehow surviving). I have been as out of control behind the wheel from smoking pot as I have drinking, and been in vehicles driven by others in like condition. I have made, and seen others make some REALLY piss-poor judgement calls while being stoned -- every bit as bad as being drunk.

On a technicality, perhaps alcohol can be considered the worse of the two. Where the rubber meets the road, ANYTHING that impairs ones motor skills and judgement turns a means of transportation into an out of control, 2 ton agent of death and/or destruction.

Stupid people driving is bad enough to deal with. Stupid people drunk OR stoned just makes it all the more disasterous.

As far as the physical effects on the human body goes .... up to this point in time I have always considered alcohol the worse of the two. That however does not dismiss the harmful effects of marijuana use.

 

[archangel]

Apology accepted.


The reason I focus on this is that the "DRUG WAR" is probably the greatest threat to liberty and freedom we face, PLUS it represents nearly 100 billion a year in wasted government expenditures that make the problem of abuse WORSE.

Let's talk about gun control for instance. Why do the liberals harp on this so much? SIMPLE. From the FAQ:

GUN CONTROL: We have stricter and stricter gun control because the crime wave that rides on prohibition has caused huge public outcry. Rather than focus on the cause of crime (socioeconomic factors of the drug war are a major component), the public and legislators lash out at gun owners.

CRIME: Crime is higher as a result of the war on drugs. In particular, homicides have skyrocketed (10 per 100,000 - the only other time the homicide rate was so high was during alcohol prohibition).

INCREASED DRUGS IN SCHOOLS: Drug use INCREASED 7 fold among 12-17 year olds after the modern War on Drugs started. The economics of prohibition favors the targeting of youths. Drug dealers don't ask for ID.

GRAFFITI: Gang tagging creates an enormous graffiti problem causing millions of dollars in damage every year. The gangs are a product of drug prohibition.

PAY PHONES: Pay phones no longer accept incoming calls. Perhaps now in these days of cell phones, it's not as much of an issue, but it's an inconvenience we all must bear as a result of the drug war.

STREET BARRICADES: In an effort to reduce street dealing, many residential areas (at least in large cities) have road blocks preventing through traffic on side streets. For local residents of such areas (I am one) it makes traveling to and from one's home very difficult, A product of the drug war.



Andy

for calling you a "Pot Head" only...still do not agree with your libertarian thinking...nor your artificial stats...self serving to say the least!

 

[dilloduck]

Apology accepted.


The reason I focus on this is that the "DRUG WAR" is probably the greatest threat to liberty and freedom we face, PLUS it represents nearly 100 billion a year in wasted government expenditures that make the problem of abuse WORSE.

Let's talk about gun control for instance. Why do the liberals harp on this so much? SIMPLE. From the FAQ:

GUN CONTROL: We have stricter and stricter gun control because the crime wave that rides on prohibition has caused huge public outcry. Rather than focus on the cause of crime (socioeconomic factors of the drug war are a major component), the public and legislators lash out at gun owners.

CRIME: Crime is higher as a result of the war on drugs. In particular, homicides have skyrocketed (10 per 100,000 - the only other time the homicide rate was so high was during alcohol prohibition).

INCREASED DRUGS IN SCHOOLS: Drug use INCREASED 7 fold among 12-17 year olds after the modern War on Drugs started. The economics of prohibition favors the targeting of youths. Drug dealers don't ask for ID.

GRAFFITI: Gang tagging creates an enormous graffiti problem causing millions of dollars in damage every year. The gangs are a product of drug prohibition.

PAY PHONES: Pay phones no longer accept incoming calls. Perhaps now in these days of cell phones, it's not as much of an issue, but it's an inconvenience we all must bear as a result of the drug war.

STREET BARRICADES: In an effort to reduce street dealing, many residential areas (at least in large cities) have road blocks preventing through traffic on side streets. For local residents of such areas (I am one) it makes traveling to and from one's home very difficult, A product of the drug war.



Andy

Do you really expect us to believe that legalizing pot will reduce crime??---gangs will find other illegal things to traffic in---they ain't stupid you know.

 

[CivilLiberty]

I haven't commented on whether or not marijuana is addictive to this point. I don't know that it is physically addictive. It can be as psychologically addictive as anything else depending on the user's predisposition to psychological addiction.

Yes, I agree Gunny.

Again, I will go back to the experiences of being young-n-dumb (and somehow surviving). I have been as out of control behind the wheel from smoking pot as I have drinking, and been in vehicles driven by others in like condition. I have made, and seen others make some REALLY piss-poor judgement calls while being stoned -- every bit as bad as being drunk.

Again, I'd like to state that I don't support driving on public roads under ANY form of incapacitation.

In my younger, dumber years, I worked a graveyard shift - and was often exhausted on my long drive home. So much so that sometimes I found myself falling asleep at the wheel. I'd often end up pulling over and sleeping in the car.

Still, I consider my self lucky that I was never involved in an accident. I *never* drive tired now, and I consider people that do as dangerous as drunks.

The point is, there are many conditions where one should not drive. A tired driver falling asleep at the wheel is as dangerous as an inebriated one. Yet we focus on the inebriated ones. really the focus should be on *personal responsibility*.

As far as the physical effects on the human body goes .... up to this point in time I have always considered alcohol the worse of the two. That however does not dismiss the harmful effects of marijuana use.

There are harmful effects in just about anything if abused.

A small amount of wine is actually good for you - but being a wino will kill you. People die from taking an aspirin. But aspirin can also help save your life.

Drink too much water and die from an edema - too little and die from dehydration.

Like *everything else* marijuana has both positive and negative qualities. for some people - particularly medical users - the positive benefits outweigh the negative qualities.

Regardless, the minor negative qualities of marijuana serve no justification for the current prohibition on the plant.


Regards,


Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

Do you really expect us to believe that legalizing pot will reduce crime??---gangs will find other illegal things to traffic in---they ain't stupid you know.

Sigh.

Gangs are fueled my the money that the black market in DRUGS brings. There is nothing else with such a high demand and profit ratio.

Yes, gangs ARE stupid - that is why they are gangs. Making money on illicit drug sales takes a certain combination of greed and stupidity.

Andy

 

[Gabriella84]

Illegal drug sales certainly make up a healthy portion of gang revenues, but are certainly not the only source. Gangs also profit from arms trafficking, prostitution, racketeering and protection.
Lobbyists are little more than legal adult gangs. They profit from bribery and coercion.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Illegal drug sales certainly make up a healthy portion of gang revenues, but are certainly not the only source. Gangs also profit from arms trafficking, prostitution, racketeering and protection.
Lobbyists are little more than legal adult gangs. They profit from bribery and coercion.

Plus they profit when they put you out to trick.

 

[dilloduck]

Sigh.

Gangs are fueled my the money that the black market in DRUGS brings. There is nothing else with such a high demand and profit ratio.

Yes, gangs ARE stupid - that is why they are gangs. Making money on illicit drug sales takes a certain combination of greed and stupidity.

Andy

Gabby smoked you, Andy.

 

[no1tovote4]

How many people die from the health effects of marijuana use each year? Zero.

That depends entirely on every user of MJ to use these Vaporizors that are not health effecting. The assumption that the Tar from a MJ Cigarette or "Joint" would not cause cancer is not "objective" as you claim. How many die from the health effects of MJ each year? I know of one person who died of Lung Cancer, he never smoked Tobacco but used MJ like it was going out of style and didn't use one of these "Vaporizors".

That the effectiveness of your "zero" would be changed by the fact that smoking MJ causes negative effects to your health seems to effect your argument thus making it far more unobjective than you want to admit.

It also ignores the slower response time.

There is a study that was done with airline pilots and MJ, they were able to land a plane within 8 inches of centerline on a flight simulator before they smoked it. They smoked the stuff and were tested again, they were unable to land it within five feet of centerline one hour after smoking, then they were tested at 24 and 48 hours, no smoking between, at both times they were still unable to land within three feet of centerline, they were finally as effective as before after 72 hours. The long-term effects of THC make it far more subtly dangerous than before, it builds up in the system with use more often. When people believe that they are no longer "high" they are still negatively effected by the drug in response times and judgement, the more they use it the longer the effect will last as it is fat soluble and does not leave the system quickly.

Thus users of MJ can effect the safety of the roads, thus effecting the safety of my children, and your direct family as they are impaired for long periods of time and cannot react or judge distances as well as those that remain unimpaired.

To say that this drug is safer than alcohol without speaking of the actual long-term effects on judgement and response time is attempting to whitewash the dangers. I agree it should be decriminalized, but don't attempt to argue that MJ is not health effecting as you seem inclined to argue. I believe that laws should be written at the place of actual victimization, not where one might be a danger to oneself but when they will be a danger to others and thus create a victim.

If you get Lung Cancer from MJ use, don't expect the public to pay for your fallacy. If you kill children due to the impaired response time while driving, even when you are not longer "high", then expect very long sentences for your murder. Habitual users of this drug should not be allowed to have driver's licenses at all as public safety is far too effected by their level of impairment that lasts far longer than the good feeling that the drug gives one.

 

[insein]

I believe the point is, Why are we restricitng substances that cause damage to one's self? Also by doing so, we create a situation where the illegal traffic of these now illegal substances causes MORE harm to innocents then the substance would have done to the user.

Why are we wasting money on trying to fight an unwinnable war? (as the libs like to use the mantra) We need to get out of the war on drugs. YOu dont win by throwing money at the problem and throwing users and dealers in jail. YOu legalize the products, offer treatments for addictions, regulate the ingredients so that you can have non toxic products in these substances (like laced marijuana with other more harmful drugs). You fight it by taking the money from the suppliers. If it doesnt make money anymore, then suppliers will not supply, dealers will not deal, gangs will not kill to protect territory.

Will people die from drug use? Yes they will. But no more then are dieing from gunshots on city streets from gang rivalries or innocent suburban teens getting caught in a bad deal in the inner city. People die from alcohol and cigarettes in the thousands a year. You cant protect people from themselves. ITs the most assinine thing to waste money on. "Well you cant kill yourself from a drug overdose if we put you in jail." Where ironically they can still have access to drugs.

This is a losing battle on all fronts and the politicians all know it. They simply make too much money for the government with this theft program.

 

[dilloduck]

I believe the point is, Why are we restricitng substances that cause damage to one's self? Also by doing so, we create a situation where the illegal traffic of these now illegal substances causes MORE harm to innocents then the substance would have done to the user.

Why are we wasting money on trying to fight an unwinnable war? (as the libs like to use the mantra) We need to get out of the war on drugs. YOu dont win by throwing money at the problem and throwing users and dealers in jail. YOu legalize the products, offer treatments for addictions, regulate the ingredients so that you can have non toxic products in these substances (like laced marijuana with other more harmful drugs). You fight it by taking the money from the suppliers. If it doesnt make money anymore, then suppliers will not supply, dealers will not deal, gangs will not kill to protect territory.

Will people die from drug use? Yes they will. But no more then are dieing from gunshots on city streets from gang rivalries or innocent suburban teens getting caught in a bad deal in the inner city. People die from alcohol and cigarettes in the thousands a year. You cant protect people from themselves. ITs the most assinine thing to waste money on. "Well you cant kill yourself from a drug overdose if we put you in jail." Where ironically they can still have access to drugs.

This is a losing battle on all fronts and the politicians all know it. They simply make too much money for the government with this theft program.

Health care is a losing battle too--we all die. No reason to stop trying to keep society the best we can while at the same understanding that it all can't be fixed

 

[insein]

Health care is a losing battle too--we all die. No reason to stop trying to keep society the best we can while at the same understanding that it all can't be fixed

couldnt agree more.

Even if you were sarcastic. I was not.

 

[dilloduck]

couldnt agree more.

Even if you were sarcastic. I was not.

No sarcasm--there are compromises that have to be made and there is no getting around the fact that the government will try to regulate things that it can't. So far they have taken a stand on a slippery slope with pot and while it may not make sense or be cheap, the alternatives are unknown and most folks want it kept illegal. Those that want it get it easily.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Illegal drug sales certainly make up a healthy portion of gang revenues, but are certainly not the only source. Gangs also profit from arms trafficking, prostitution, racketeering and protection.
Lobbyists are little more than legal adult gangs. They profit from bribery and coercion.

At 80 billion a year, drugs make up the lion's share.

Prostitution should *also* be legally regulated.

The other 'strong arm' bits are insignificant in the face of the enormous profits from the drug black market.



Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

Gabby smoked you, Andy.

Hardly.

Yawn.


A

 

[CivilLiberty]

That depends entirely on every user of MJ to use these Vaporizors that are not health effecting. The assumption that the Tar from a MJ Cigarette or "Joint" would not cause cancer is not "objective" as you claim. How many die from the health effects of MJ each year? I know of one person who died of Lung Cancer, he never smoked Tobacco but used MJ like it was going out of style and didn't use one of these "Vaporizors".

And there are plenty of people that die of lung cancer that never smoked a day in their life.

There has not to my knowledge been a study that showed a link between lung cancer and marijuana smoke (and marijuana smoke is significantly different than tobacco smoke in its constitution).

There are plenty of ways of ingesting marijuana, none of which have been shown to cause cancer.

It's interesting that tobacco is shown to cause cancer even when NOT smoked - people chewing tobacco tend to get lip cancer for instance.


One reason for the difference is that use patter of marijuana are quite different from the habitual patterns associated with tobacco.

Nevertheless, there are other health consequences from habitual smoke inhalation, regardless of the source.

But this is not a valid reason for prohibition.


Andy