Marijuana: the non-hate thread...

[archangel]

I'm talking PER CAPITA figures - in other words, ADJUSTED FOR TEH DIFFERENT IN POPULATION. that is why I said *percentage* - that means percentage relative to their population size.


And yes, they legalized heroin for addicts. That program has been such an ASTOUNDING success that Switzerland also adopted a similar program, and Germany, Spain and other are also moving in that direction.

In Amsterdam, the legal heroin has ENDED the black market for heroin, and as a result their addict population STOPPED GROWING - and crime decreased, and the other problems of the black market - like the health problems of dirty needles and tainted supplies - also went away.



The issues of child porn are NOT related to this discussion.


Andy

The government quarantined "Red Light" district is the only place in Amsterdam where dealers of drugs can operate without fear of arrest...approximately 7000 addicts call it home and some 60% of petty crimes are committed by addicts....
www.oced.swt.edu/OCED/SOCI 3349/chapt12.htm

Here is your wonderful picture of a city called home by Libertarians...would not want one down the street from me and my kids....
www.amsterdamhotspots.nl/redlights.html

 

[CivilLiberty]

The government quarantined "Red Light" district is the only place in Amsterdam where dealers of drugs can operate without fear of arrest...approximately 7000 addicts call it home and some 60% of petty crimes are committed by addicts....
www.oced.swt.edu/OCED/SOCI 3349/chapt12.htm

And I notice you cleverly (NOT) omitted the next part of that sentence:

"In spite of these findings, drug related homicides in Amsterdam are very rare.* Comparisons show* Washington to have 15 times more drug related murders than Amsterdam."


And what of the "petty" crimes made by alcoholics in inner cities of America? surely you make no distinction.

Here is your wonderful picture of a city called home by Libertarians...would not want one down the street from me and my kids....
www.amsterdamhotspots.nl/redlights.html

Love Amsterdam - far safer than L.A. or NYC, the people are nice, and it's overall a great city.

The red light district is virtually crime free, clean, and healthy. Your kids would not be "exposed" to anything unsavory.

I've been there, I know. I wouldn't mind living there, actually - I have some friends from high school that do. As a filmmaker, though, I need to live here in Hollywood...


Andy

 

[nakedemperor]

Dude dude wait wait wait wait sshhhh.. you just like totally blew my mind.

Marijuana, in moderation, is a lovely commodity. Anyone remember those anti-pot commercials that told us that buying pot supports the terrorists? They were fucking amazing.

 

[insein]

Dude dude wait wait wait wait sshhhh.. you just like totally blew my mind.

Marijuana, in moderation, is a lovely commodity. Anyone remember those anti-pot commercials that told us that buying pot supports the terrorists? They were fucking amazing.

Thats your Big government buddies putting our tax dollars to work. You can thank the "War on Drugs" theft program for that gem.

 

[manu1959]

And I notice you cleverly (NOT) omitted the next part of that sentence:

"In spite of these findings, drug related homicides in Amsterdam are very rare.* Comparisons show* Washington to have 15 times more drug related murders than Amsterdam."


And what of the "petty" crimes made by alcoholics in inner cities of America? surely you make no distinction.




Love Amsterdam - far safer than L.A. or NYC, the people are nice, and it's overall a great city.

The red light district is virtually crime free, clean, and healthy. Your kids would not be "exposed" to anything unsavory.

I've been there, I know. I wouldn't mind living there, actually - I have some friends from high school that do. As a filmmaker, though, I need to live here in Hollywood...


Andy

tell ya what andy get anyone ya want to blaze a j solo and i wil down a bottle of wine


1 v 1 i wil toats them at anything they like ...

 

[no1tovote4]

And again, while they indicate the NON cancerous legions, they make NO LINK to ACTUAL CANCER.

Your studies indicate "non-cancerous legions", but you have yet to show an affirmative link to cancer.

Bull... They make the link directly. They are the same LESIONS that are found among tobacco smokers, those lesions that have been found to be pre-cancerous. You are beginning to sound like the tobacco companies attempting to show there is no evidence that smoking tobacco causes cancer...

I never said that THC was not fat soluble - only that it is primarily the NON PSYCHOACTIVE metabolites that are stored in fat cells. That THC is fat soluble is irrelevant when the majority of it is rapidly metabolized.

You did too I will find the quote and add it with an edit later. Later I proved you wrong in that but you still insist you are right even with direct evidence. Just admit it, you don't know as much as you want us to think you do about the long-term effects of marijuana. So far you have been wrong in several cases. Stating there were no studies that linked it to cancer, I show you a study that shows that there are even more carcinogenic substances in MJ smoke than in Tobacco, and that even stated why, even though they smoke less often, they are in about the same amount of danger and tobacco users. You ignore what the study says and state that they are in less danger because they smoke less often...

You don't even read the evidence provided, as evidenced by your responses that are totally erroneous when one actually reads the studies. Such as the study explaining why though smoking less often they are in the same danger...

Here it is:
No, the THC is NOt stored is fat cells. The THC is rapidly metabolized. It is the METABOLITES that are stored in fat cells.
(the bold is mine, the words are CL's)

And here is a link to the post, just in case you want to attempt to say I changed the words in the post to fit my agenda:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=316502&postcount=48

READ YOUR OWN SIGNATURE AND MAYBE TAKE SOME ADVICE FROM IT!

"The greatest folly of human existence is the ease with which we can be made to believe, and even fight for, a lie - provided that lie is something we want to hear."

The effect is *not* cumulative, and a person is *no longer impared* after the effects wear off. What little THC may be locked into fat cells does not contribute to a "high".

The study I spoke of earlier showed that the effects are longer lasting than the high. When the airline pilots were no longer high their ability to land the plane was still effected for three days after. The effect is cumulative and demonstrably so.

I agree with your agreeing. I agree that people - while high - should not drive. I disagree with your assumption that people are incapacitated even while not high.

Andy

You disagree with actual findings of a study then, not "my assumption" (the opinion is clearly based in a study while yours is based only in discounting the study with only the weight of your assertion), and that is fine, but show a study that shows that they are unimpaired rather than simply discounting the study that shows that they are impaired even after the high wears off with no evidence but your own assertion.

I am positive we can all remember anecdotal evidence from our past in HS. Everybody remember the potheads? The slow talking, slow moving, apathetic bunch that stood outside and smoked cigarettes by the wall? But that is just anecdotal, luckily there are studies that backup the assertions that I have made or I might sound like a MJ apologist willing to believe that it is a beneficial herb only and that effects are not long-reaching based on no evidence but my refusal to believe evidence provided in studies that I refuse to admit exist.


The problem you are having is the same that tobacco companies had for so long. Ignoring evidence to attempt to tell people that there is no evidence that it is linked to cancer, thinking that the link would kill any legislation to keep it legal. In your case you want to argue to make it decriminalized (at least that is what I assume even though you keep saying legalized which would actually mean unregulated at all) and think that any link to cancer will stop that from happening, which is a place of weakness from which to begin the argument at all. When it is so easily shown that it is carcinogenic because of the known carcinogens found in the smoke itself you begin on a platform with no foundation.

I will once again quote from the NIDA site and the study that shows that not only is MJ carcinogenic, but it is still carcinogenic even when it was not smoked...

"Marijuana use also has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens(12, 13). In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke(14). It also produces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form—levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells(15). Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may increase the risk of cancer more than smoking tobacco."

It seems to me that you begin your argument on a platform of self-enforced ignorance attempting to deny evidence that is apparent to all of us. It is easy to fall into the lie when you want to believe it so badly you can taste it, but you should avoid it at all costs. Begin the argument from a place of strength, admitting to the self-inflicted danger and working to keep people's rights strong enough that they can inflict themselves with carcinogens if they so please so long as they put no other people into danger. Rather than attempting to argue from the weakest point attempting to pretend it is a strength when it is so easily shown to be inaccurate. You do your argument and your cause a disservice when starting from such a weak position.

 

[archangel]

And I notice you cleverly (NOT) omitted the next part of that sentence:

"In spite of these findings, drug related homicides in Amsterdam are very rare.* Comparisons show* Washington to have 15 times more drug related murders than Amsterdam."


And what of the "petty" crimes made by alcoholics in inner cities of America? surely you make no distinction.




Love Amsterdam - far safer than L.A. or NYC, the people are nice, and it's overall a great city.

The red light district is virtually crime free, clean, and healthy. Your kids would not be "exposed" to anything unsavory.

I've been there, I know. I wouldn't mind living there, actually - I have some friends from high school that do. As a filmmaker, though, I need to live here in Hollywood...


Andy

Iv'e been to Amsterdam too...it sucks...perversion rules...did you even notice that Amsterdam limits the area to the "Red Light" district...you really need to stop reading so many "Hollywood" scripts and pay attention to the real world...and why you are at it may I suggest you pack your bags and move to Amsterdam....since you love it so much...It would be a great city for the Libertarian effort...cause I for one prefer to live in a conservative atmosphere...
If you want your future children to run around and rub elbows with pervs and prostitutes and drug dealers...well my man go for it!

 

[CivilLiberty]

Bull... They make the link directly. They are the same LESIONS that are found among tobacco smokers, those lesions that have been found to be pre-cancerous.

They are NON cancerous. Then, under what conditions to non cancerous legions become cancerous?

Is tobacco smoke, with its radioactive trace elements a contributing factor? Is the "continuous" nature of tobacco smoke inhalation a factor? Is marijuana smoke a factor?

That report makes assumptions and draws inferences, but does not show CONCLUSIVE LINKS to cancer.


Having said that, there are no epidemiological studies that show that marijuana causes cancer - there are plenty that show tobacco does.

Where are the cancer ridden lab rats that got cancer from marijuana?

The study I spoke of earlier showed that the effects are longer lasting than the high. When the airline pilots were no longer high their ability to land the plane was still effected for three days after. The effect is cumulative and demonstrably so.

Which study on pilots? I missed that - didn't see that in the links you provided.


And further - the insignificant level of impairment that you mention can be found is *anyting*. Caffeine tolerance can cause "impairment" when someone goes without it for too long.

In fact, I quit caffeine once about 2 years ago for several months - the withdrawals were worse than when I quit drinking alcohol. Definitely "impairing" in the context that you suggest.


It's an inappropriate use of the word "impairment" when you claim the "long term" affectations you suggest.

You can say the same about alcohol - in the days after heavy drinking, one could be "impaired" with a hangover, even though the blood alcohol level in zero.

If you're going to start claiming that as "impairment" then the word loses its meaning.

Andy

 

[no1tovote4]

They are NON cancerous. Then, under what conditions to non cancerous legions become cancerous?

Under the same conditions that the same lesions become cancerous in those that smoke tobacco... The comparison was to tobacco and the lesions that lead to cancer in those that smoke tobacco being the same as those in those that smoke MJ but not tobacco. To deny the significance is simply wishing away the comparison without regard to the facts... Such as those provided by NIDA that actually list the carcinogenic substances that are contained in MJ smoke. You can't wish this away, it is carcinogenic regardless of how much you don't want it to be, this was the very reason that people started using those Vaporizers that you stated made it less dangerous yet you want to ignore the evidence provided to you to keep insisting that it is not carcinogenic. A smoke that contains carcinogenic substances and causes the same lesions that are found in smokers is clearly carcinogenic...Once again, your signature is pointing right at you...

Is tobacco smoke, with its radioactive trace elements a contributing factor? Is the "continuous" nature of tobacco smoke inhalation a factor? Is marijuana smoke a factor?

That report makes assumptions and draws inferences, but does not show CONCLUSIVE LINKS to cancer.

That's inane, it is the same argument the tobacco companies used to show that it was never proven that smoking causes cancer. It once again denies the conclusion simply because it speaks of increased chances much like all the studies linking tobacco to cancer...

Having said that, there are no epidemiological studies that show that marijuana causes cancer - there are plenty that show tobacco does.

Where are the cancer ridden lab rats that got cancer from marijuana?

They were in the NIDA study that you clearly didn't read... They mention the mice getting cancer when given THC without smoking the substance, it was the evidence that I gave you that showed that THC was carcinogenic in the same way the Nicotine itself was found to be so, it limits the body's ability to fight cancerous cells thus increasing the cancer found in the mice that did not smoke but were given THC. You didn't read the study, you therefore keep embarrassing yourself by asserting stuff answered in the study. Read the site before you keep doing this.

Which study on pilots? I missed that - didn't see that in the links you provided.

(since you haven't figured out yet that I am actually knowledgeable and only post stuff that has basis in reality).

Okay here's one:
http://www.wctu.org/marijuana_-_safe_.html

"The effects of marijuana last longer than those of alcohol. Studies show that three to five hours after smoking one joint, the user is still significantly impaired. An experiment with pilots, using a computerized flight simulator, showed impairment 24 hours after smoking one joint."

(the bolded part speak of the impairment of the testing after 24 hours, clearly beyond the "high").

Another one:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_v20/ai_4116543

Here's one from the Mayo Clinic that speaks of the long-term effects:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?objectid=0B86DC5A-7D8E-4A34-A24E100EB932A587&si=2765

Some quotes:

"Cancer. Burning marijuana smoke contains higher amounts of some cancer-causing chemicals than does tobacco smoke. Smoking marijuana increases your risk of cancer of the mouth, larynx and lungs. "

"Breathing trouble. Long-term marijuana use increases your risk of emphysema (which damages the lungs so they can't inflate with fresh air) and bronchitis (an inflammation of the airways in the lungs). You're also more likely to experience frequent coughing and excessive phlegm. "

"Limit attention span. With daily marijuana use, you may have trouble maintaining attention, shifting attention from one subject to another and processing incoming information for many hours after you last used the drug. "

"Inhibit driving ability. The drug can reduce eye-hand coordination, reaction time and muscle strength. Coordination and movement impairment can last hours after you no longer feel high, endangering you and others on the road if you're driving. A 1991 study of airplane pilots shows that pilots who smoked marijuana fared worse on simulated aircraft landings — combined with a lack of awareness of the poor performance — even 24 hours after smoking marijuana. "

And further - the insignificant level of impairment that you mention can be found is *anyting*. Caffeine tolerance can cause "impairment" when someone goes without it for too long.

It is only insignificant in your own mind.

According to Mayo Clinic site:
"Inhibit driving ability. The drug can reduce eye-hand coordination, reaction time and muscle strength. Coordination and movement impairment can last hours after you no longer feel high, endangering you and others on the road if you're driving. A 1991 study of airplane pilots shows that pilots who smoked marijuana fared worse on simulated aircraft landings — combined with a lack of awareness of the poor performance — even 24 hours after smoking marijuana. "

In fact, I quit caffeine once about 2 years ago for several months - the withdrawals were worse than when I quit drinking alcohol. Definitely "impairing" in the context that you suggest.

That's an inane comparison. People have died, yes actually died, from the withdrawals associated with alcohol, none have with caffeine.

It's an inappropriate use of the word "impairment" when you claim the "long term" affectations you suggest.

Once again, only to you. It takes less than thirty seconds to find these things online. You have clearly not studied the subject of the carcinogenic effects of MJ, or the long-term effects...

You can say the same about alcohol - in the days after heavy drinking, one could be "impaired" with a hangover, even though the blood alcohol level in zero.

If you're going to start claiming that as "impairment" then the word loses its meaning.

Andy

The impairment with MJ continues as it builds up in your system, there is a large difference. Alcohol actually leaves your system and the impairment does not continue after a period of time, THC does not and will actually build up and continue in the impairment long after the effects of the high have worn off. My use of impairment are given with studies to back them up, you have only your assertions and end up looking foolish again. Continuing in this argument will only make you look like you have drunk the Kool-Aid.

A substance that has carcinogenic material in it is clearly carcinogenic:

http://www.sarnia.com/groups/antidrug/mjmeds/mjcancr.html

"Clearly marijuana smoke contains more of the potent carcinogen benzopyrene than tobacco smoke. Furthermore, the technique of smoking marijuana by inhaling deeply and holding the smoke within the lungs presents a chance of much greater exposure than a conventional
tobacco cigarette. "

http://www.lung-cancers.com/
"Smoking marijuana may cause cancers of the mouth and throat as well as the lung, although the connection is tough to make because of the illegal nature of marijuana. However, marijuana is suspect because it contains more tar than tobacco, it is deeply inhaled and held in the lungs, and many cancer causing substances are found in marijuana."

Just stop arguing your case from it's largest weak point, it makes you look far less intelligent than you are.

 

[nakedemperor]

Thats your Big government buddies putting our tax dollars to work. You can thank the "War on Drugs" theft program for that gem.

Who are my big government buddies? Oh, you must mean the current administration that has expanded the government, increased government spending, increased government power and privilege, and decreased individual and civil rights and liberties.

Right?

 

[Nuc]

Who are my big government buddies? Oh, you must mean the current administration that has expanded the government, increased government spending, increased government power and privilege, and decreased individual and civil rights and liberties.

Right?

No way man, if this were true we'd be running a huge deficit right now, we'd have new intelligence and security branches, and there would be a lot of bizarre searches going on in public places. You are wrong!

 

[CivilLiberty]

They were in the NIDA study that you clearly didn't read... They mention the mice getting cancer when given THC without smoking the substance,

Can't find that link, but I did find this page at NIDA which states:

"It’s hard to know for sure whether regular marijuana use causes cancer."

http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/Marijteenstxt.html

Hmmmm.. gee, that seems a far cry from "conclusive" to me.

Okay here's one:
http://www.wctu.org/marijuana_-_safe_.html

"The effects of marijuana last longer than those of alcohol. Studies show that three to five hours after smoking one joint, the user is still significantly impaired. An experiment with pilots, using a computerized flight simulator, showed impairment 24 hours after smoking one joint."

(the bolded part speak of the impairment of the testing after 24 hours, clearly beyond the "high").

An article with no cite, but they are obviously citing the same exact study as shown below:

Another one:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_v20/ai_4116543

Okay, this actually discusses the facts of the study a bit more.

In summary, some pilots were given joints and got very stoned. They were then brought back the next day, complaining of a hangover. they performed *slightly* less well.

The team that did this research ALSO studied alccohol, and found that alcohol ALSO had this "hangover" effect.

Myth: A Single Joint Has Effects That Linger for Days and Weeks

While it is true that THC and other cannabinoids are fat-soluble and linger in the body for prolonged periods, they do not normally affect behavior beyond a few hours except in chronic users. Most impairment studies have found that the adverse effects of acute marijuana use wear off in 2-6 hours, commonly faster than alcohol[24] The one notable exception was a pair of flight simulator studies by Leirer, Yesavage, and Morrow, which reported effects on flight simulator performance up to 24 hours later[25] The differences, described by Leirer as "very subtle" and "very marginal," were less than those due to pilot age. Another flight simulator study by the same group failed to find any effects beyond 4 hours[26] Similar "hangover" effects have been noted for alcohol[27]

References on Accidents and Drug Testing:

Alcohol, Drugs and Driving: Abstracts and Reviews Vol. 2 #3-4 (Brain Information Service, UCLA 1986);

Dale Gieringer, "Marijuana, Driving, and Accident Safety," Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20 (1): 93-101 (Jan.-Mar 1988);

Dr. John Morgan, "Impaired Statistics and the Unimpaired Worker,"

Drug Policy Letter 1(2): May/June 1989, and "The 'scientific' justification for drug urine testing,"

The University of Kansas Law Review 36: 683-97 (1988); John Horgan, "Test Negative: A look at the evidence justifying illicit-drug tests,"



And as a side note - I am a pilot. I am familiar with the FRESCA 142 simulator used in the studies.

This is NOT a "motion simulator" - as such it is really only useful for developing skills in instrument flight rules. It SUCKS as a landing sim, because when landing, a pilot uses FEEL. take away the "feel" aspect of landing and most pilots will not perform the landing as well as in actual flight, or in a motion sim. the *slight* variations in the "hung over" pilots are hardly an incapacitation, particularly in view of the type of simulator used.

That's an inane comparison. People have died, yes actually died, from the withdrawals associated with alcohol, none have with caffeine.

I am quite aware of the fact that alcohol withdrawal can be fatal - that was hardly the point. My point was that even caffeine can result is a negative effect on performance.

Once again, only to you. It takes less than thirty seconds to find these things online. You have clearly not studied the subject of the carcinogenic effects of MJ, or the long-term effects...

No, I've read many of these links, and heard the same things over and over.

Put them in context - compare to alcohol or tobacco, for instance.

Out of context, it's easy to say all kinds of bad things. For instance, perhaps some people would like to ban di-hydrogen Monoxide:


http://www.dhmo.org

The impairment with MJ continues as it builds up in your system, there is a large difference. Alcohol actually leaves your system and the impairment does not continue after a period of time, THC does not and will actually build up and continue in the impairment long after the effects of the high have worn off.

THIS is the statement you keep making that I take exception to, if you want to boil it all down. It is Not supported by evidence, nor any of the links you've thus far submitted. It is only your conjecture.

"Clearly marijuana smoke contains more of the potent carcinogen benzopyrene than tobacco smoke. Furthermore, the technique of smoking marijuana by inhaling deeply and holding the smoke within the lungs presents a chance of much greater exposure than a conventional
tobacco cigarette. "

http://www.lung-cancers.com/
"Smoking marijuana may cause cancers of the mouth and throat as well as the lung, although the connection is tough to make because of the illegal nature of marijuana. However, marijuana is suspect because it contains more tar than tobacco, it is deeply inhaled and held in the lungs, and many cancer causing substances are found in marijuana."

Just stop arguing your case from it's largest weak point, it makes you look far less intelligent than you are.

I have NEVER suggested that marijuana is "harmless".

CLIPPING:

Just as most experts agree that occasional or moderate use of marijuana is innocuous, they also agree that excessive use can be harmful. Research shows that the two major risks of excessive marijuana use are: (1) respiratory disease due to smoking and (2) accidental injuries due to impairment. In addition, marijuana speeds the heartbeat, which can be dangerous for patients with serious heart disease.

Marijuana and Smoking:

A survey by the Kaiser Permanente Center found that daily marijuana-only smokers have a 19% higher rate of respiratory complaints than non-smokers[01] These findings were not unexpected, since it has long been known that, aside from its psychoactive ingredients, marijuana smoke contains virtually the same toxic gases and carcinogenic tars as tobacco. Human studies have found that pot smokers suffer similar kinds of respiratory damage as tobacco smokers, putting them at greater risk of bronchitis, sore throat, respiratory inflammation and infections[02]

Fortunately, the hazards of marijuana smoking can be reduced by various strategies: (1) use of higher-potency cannabis, which can be smoked in smaller quantities, (2) use of vaporizers and other smoke reduction technologies[06] and (3) ingesting pot orally instead of smoking it.


Myth: One Joint Equals One Pack (or 16, or maybe just 4) Cigarettes

Some critics exaggerate the dangers of marijuana smoking by fallaciously citing a study by Dr. Tashkin which found that daily pot smokers experienced a "mild but significant" increase in airflow resistance in the large airways greater than that seen in persons smoking 16 cigarettes per day[07] What they ignore is that the same study examined other, more important aspects of lung health, in which marijuana smokers did much better than tobacco smokers. Dr. Tashkin himself disavows the notion that one joint equals 16 cigarettes.

A more widely accepted estimate is that marijuana smokers consume four times as much carcinogenic tar as cigarettes smokers per weight smoked This does not necessarily mean that one joint equals four cigarettes, since joints usually weigh less. In fact, the average joint has been estimated to contain 0.4 grams of pot, a bit less than one-half the weight of a cigarette, making one joint equal to two cigarettes (actually, joint sizes range from cigar-sized spliffs smoked by Rastas, to very fine sinsemilla joints weighing as little as 0.2 grams). It should be noted that there is no exact equivalency between tobacco and marijuana smoking, because they affect different parts of the respiratory tract differently: whereas tobacco tends to penetrate to the smaller, peripheral passageways of the lungs, pot tends to concentrate on the larger, central passageways One consequence of this is that pot, unlike tobacco, does not appear to cause emphysema.




Cheers (and by the way I am enjoying this debate...)



Andy

 

[no1tovote4]

Can't find that link, but I did find this page at NIDA which states:

"It’s hard to know for sure whether regular marijuana use causes cancer."

http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/Marijteenstxt.html

Hmmmm.. gee, that seems a far cry from "conclusive" to me.

You fail to mention that study is difficult on the result because of the illegality of the substance and that is what they speak of when they say it is "difficult" to know for sure.

However, carcinogenic substances are found in a higher concentration in the smoke of MJ, it is simply a fact found on many sites and in many places. When tested, those that smoke MJ and not tobacco show the same lesions as those found in those that smoke only tobacco...

As I said before, the tobacco companies consistently stated the EXACT same argument you attempt to make here. That it was never conclusively proven that tobacco causes cancer. This is because not everybody that smokes tobacco will get cancer, it is a percentage basis. Those that have the lesions will not all get cancer, but they are a sign that cancer could be immenent. Arguing that carcinogens in MJ are not carcinogens is simply ignoring facts in order to "butress" your argument, but you end up looking like the Tobacco companies, it simply doesn't wash.

An article with no cite, but they are obviously citing the same exact study as shown below:



Okay, this actually discusses the facts of the study a bit more.

In summary, some pilots were given joints and got very stoned. They were then brought back the next day, complaining of a hangover. they performed *slightly* less well.

The team that did this research ALSO studied alccohol, and found that alcohol ALSO had this "hangover" effect.

Myth: A Single Joint Has Effects That Linger for Days and Weeks

I never said that a "single joint" would do that. That is inane. Imagine the guy that smokes daily though, he never gives time for the THC to leave his body (that takes longer than 30 days in some instances and is one of the reasons that they can test for the drug up to one month after smoking even one joint.) Since it takes time for it to leave the body there is a buildup. It is one of the reasons that withdrawal from MJ is almost unheard of, there is substance that leaves the body slowly, therefore allowing the body to get used to the lower amounts of THC limiting withdrawal.

While it is true that THC and other cannabinoids are fat-soluble and linger in the body for prolonged periods, they do not normally affect behavior beyond a few hours except in chronic users. Most impairment studies have found that the adverse effects of acute marijuana use wear off in 2-6 hours, commonly faster than alcohol[24] The one notable exception was a pair of flight simulator studies by Leirer, Yesavage, and Morrow, which reported effects on flight simulator performance up to 24 hours later[25] The differences, described by Leirer as "very subtle" and "very marginal," were less than those due to pilot age. Another flight simulator study by the same group failed to find any effects beyond 4 hours[26] Similar "hangover" effects have been noted for alcohol[27]

Your own article proves the point I was making. Those that use it often enough for the cumulative effect (Chronic Users in your article) do have a deleterious effect that is long-term.

References on Accidents and Drug Testing:

Alcohol, Drugs and Driving: Abstracts and Reviews Vol. 2 #3-4 (Brain Information Service, UCLA 1986);

Dale Gieringer, "Marijuana, Driving, and Accident Safety," Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20 (1): 93-101 (Jan.-Mar 1988);

Dr. John Morgan, "Impaired Statistics and the Unimpaired Worker,"

Drug Policy Letter 1(2): May/June 1989, and "The 'scientific' justification for drug urine testing,"

The University of Kansas Law Review 36: 683-97 (1988); John Horgan, "Test Negative: A look at the evidence justifying illicit-drug tests,"



And as a side note - I am a pilot. I am familiar with the FRESCA 142 simulator used in the studies.

This is NOT a "motion simulator" - as such it is really only useful for developing skills in instrument flight rules. It SUCKS as a landing sim, because when landing, a pilot uses FEEL. take away the "feel" aspect of landing and most pilots will not perform the landing as well as in actual flight, or in a motion sim. the *slight* variations in the "hung over" pilots are hardly an incapacitation, particularly in view of the type of simulator used.

However the pilots performed well when not stoned, and performed less-than-well after the "high" had worn off. The deletrious effect lasted after the high. The difference being these were not the "Chronic Users" written of in your article.

I am quite aware of the fact that alcohol withdrawal can be fatal - that was hardly the point. My point was that even caffeine can result is a negative effect on performance.

Not nearly as negative as that of Cannabis or Alcohol. My point was saying it was worse to quit caffeine than to quit alcohol was where I was objecting to your personal anecdotal evidence. The difference being that those who are addicted to alcohol would disagree one hundred percent.

No, I've read many of these links, and heard the same things over and over.

Put them in context - compare to alcohol or tobacco, for instance.

Out of context, it's easy to say all kinds of bad things. For instance, perhaps some people would like to ban di-hydrogen Monoxide:


http://www.dhmo.org

The first study I posted compared them directly and found the same lesions in the lungs of MJ users as found in the Tobacco users. You conveniently use the argument that the Tobacco companies used for so long, that the studies do not conclusively show a link to cancer. It didn't wash for the tobacco companies and it will not wash with you either.

THIS is the statement you keep making that I take exception to, if you want to boil it all down. It is Not supported by evidence, nor any of the links you've thus far submitted. It is only your conjecture.

Your own article mentioned the "Chronic Users" that I was speaking of when making this point. It spoke of long-term deleterious effects on those users. That you fail to admit that these people exist doesn't make the point less salient. Even in the articles you post to buttress your argument they mention the same type of user that I was speaking of. (Those that use it often enough to have the cumulative effect....)

I have NEVER suggested that marijuana is "harmless".

CLIPPING:

Just as most experts agree that occasional or moderate use of marijuana is innocuous, they also agree that excessive use can be harmful. Research shows that the two major risks of excessive marijuana use are: (1) respiratory disease due to smoking and (2) accidental injuries due to impairment. In addition, marijuana speeds the heartbeat, which can be dangerous for patients with serious heart disease.

Marijuana and Smoking:

A survey by the Kaiser Permanente Center found that daily marijuana-only smokers have a 19% higher rate of respiratory complaints than non-smokers[01] These findings were not unexpected, since it has long been known that, aside from its psychoactive ingredients, marijuana smoke contains virtually the same toxic gases and carcinogenic tars as tobacco. Human studies have found that pot smokers suffer similar kinds of respiratory damage as tobacco smokers, putting them at greater risk of bronchitis, sore throat, respiratory inflammation and infections[02]

Fortunately, the hazards of marijuana smoking can be reduced by various strategies: (1) use of higher-potency cannabis, which can be smoked in smaller quantities, (2) use of vaporizers and other smoke reduction technologies[06] and (3) ingesting pot orally instead of smoking it.


Myth: One Joint Equals One Pack (or 16, or maybe just 4) Cigarettes

Some critics exaggerate the dangers of marijuana smoking by fallaciously citing a study by Dr. Tashkin which found that daily pot smokers experienced a "mild but significant" increase in airflow resistance in the large airways greater than that seen in persons smoking 16 cigarettes per day[07] What they ignore is that the same study examined other, more important aspects of lung health, in which marijuana smokers did much better than tobacco smokers. Dr. Tashkin himself disavows the notion that one joint equals 16 cigarettes.

A more widely accepted estimate is that marijuana smokers consume four times as much carcinogenic tar as cigarettes smokers per weight smoked This does not necessarily mean that one joint equals four cigarettes, since joints usually weigh less. In fact, the average joint has been estimated to contain 0.4 grams of pot, a bit less than one-half the weight of a cigarette, making one joint equal to two cigarettes (actually, joint sizes range from cigar-sized spliffs smoked by Rastas, to very fine sinsemilla joints weighing as little as 0.2 grams). It should be noted that there is no exact equivalency between tobacco and marijuana smoking, because they affect different parts of the respiratory tract differently: whereas tobacco tends to penetrate to the smaller, peripheral passageways of the lungs, pot tends to concentrate on the larger, central passageways One consequence of this is that pot, unlike tobacco, does not appear to cause emphysema.




Cheers (and by the way I am enjoying this debate...)



Andy

I too am enjoying the debate.

In your argument you have attempted to argue that MJ is not carcinogenic, my only points have been that it is carcinogenic and to say it is not is simply denying the obvious for the reasons expounded on several times. Saying you were attempting to maintain the "benificent value" in a previous statement was overstatement on my part, but attempting to devalue the fact that smoke that contains carcinogens and causes the same lesions in the lungs as those in tobacco smokers is not carcinogenic is ignoring factual information in order to buttress your cause...

My main point is using such an argument will only devalue your cause because it is so easy to find information that is directly opposing your view. It should not be the central point of an argument to legalize this drug that it isn't carcinogenic, or even that it isn't quite as bad as cigarettes. The argument should be people should be able to put whatever poison they want into their own bodies so long as their use does not effect others. This is why I include in my argument that Chronic users should not be allowed Driver's licenses, thus I negate one of the arguments against the decriminalization of the drug before it begins. Just as you negate the whole cancer argument if you begin admitting that smoke that contains carcinogens is likely to be carcinogenic from the beginning.

My hope is that you will not use the "healthier than cigarettes" argument as the central focus of the Decriminalize it argument. I believe that if you do your argument will fall flat on its face and will never gain any movement as it is simply way too easy to deflate the false balloon.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Who are my big government buddies? Oh, you must mean the current administration that has expanded the government, increased government spending, increased government power and privilege, and decreased individual and civil rights and liberties.

Right?

You lefties don't like individual rights anyway or freedom. In free societies people succeed at varying degrees for various reasons. You've constricted your own thinking to the point that most of you believe the only factors that preciptate success are class, and willingness to do evil. All success is explained away as unfair, and then villified.

 

[GotZoom]

Nope, not at all. A "Bong" and a "Vaporizer" are completely different devices.

A "bong" is a water filled device which passes the smoke from BURNED marijuana through the water as a filter.


A VAPORIZER is a very different device - the Marijuana is NOT burned at all, but the oils from the marijuana are vaporized without combustion, making no smoke, but a oil vapor, like an inhaler.



Regards,


Andy

So....

I didn't inhale.

I .... vaporized?

 

[sagegirl]

I support the ideas of freedom and responsibility. Although I do not necessarily share an interest in many of the activities that I would bring to issue, violent video games, prostittution, drug use, I feel that they must be tolerated to guarantee a free society. Some regulation is in order.
On the same page, I do not feel any of these are or should be a valid or even recognised excuse for any irresponsible, illegal behavior. ( in some cases of course, as the laws now stand, the act in and of itself is illegal) Decriminalization helps toward this process. It separates the crime and the supposed cause.
Everything that you do has consequences, anything that impairs your ability to function fully has to be considered a risk factor, the risk factor to yourself is yours to determine and any HARM you cause to OTHERS should be severely punished. Somehow in this society, (I think because in reality we all occasionally stretch the limits) there is a tendency to "forgive" and think leniency is some Christian moral upsmanship. It isnt. Tolerance of others is freedom, tolerance of injury to others is stupid and damaging to a free society.

 

[Said1]

Is it just me, or have others noticed that many chronic pot smokers suffer from extreme paranoia - stoned or not?

 

[archangel]

Is it just me, or have others noticed that many chronic pot smokers suffer from extreme paranoia - stoned or not?

anyone who is not a user sees this...sagegirl is a prime example along with a couple of others in here! :coffee3:

 

[GotZoom]

I'm still pondering the cancerous and non-cancerous lesions.

I know a non-cancerous lesion is better than a cancerous one but..

how about NO lesions?

Just a thought.

 

[no1tovote4]

I'm still pondering the cancerous and non-cancerous lesions.

I know a non-cancerous lesion is better than a cancerous one but..

how about NO lesions?

Just a thought.

Calling them non-cancerous is a tactic to make people feel safer, it was a tactic used by the tobacco companies and one that is used by those who wish to legalize MJ. Unfortunately it was already shown that such a tactic is unsupportable and will not work. Those lesions are the precursor of cancer, that many people still will not develop the cancer when they have such lesions doesn't mean that they are not a sign of the damage that will often lead to cancer and is just a distraction from the actual conclusion of studies that they would rather dismiss. The science is the same as those that link tobacco to cancer, there is a clear delineation that shows that the smoke contains more carcinogens than tobacco and often in higher concentrations.