Beer, Cigarettes & Marijuana -- What's the difference?

[MizMolly]

MJ laws were enacted at a time when the only people who were really using MJ were african-americans and hispanics.

Kind of like that Buffet song:

"And only Jazz Musicians were smoking Marijuana."

Some people will find race in every issue. I do not believe race was a factor when the laws were enacted. It was because of us long-haired hippy-types LOL

 

[geauxtohell]

MJ laws were enacted at a time when the only people who were really using MJ were african-americans and hispanics.

Kind of like that Buffet song:

"And only Jazz Musicians were smoking Marijuana."

Some people will find race in every issue. I do not believe race was a factor when the laws were enacted. It was because of us long-haired hippy-types LOL

You think Marijuana laws were first enacted in the 60's and 70's?

At any rate, you can believe what you want, but the facts behind the matter are well established and have been well documented.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not going to participate in any more 'is too - is not' arguments with the potheads, but honestly people. Don't any of you ever look up the facts before you post? Or you depend strictly on sites put out there by the pro legalization crowd so they'll have something to link in hopes they can at least appear credible?

For those who swallowed the 'keep the black folks down' racists theory, at least look at the history of drug laws here:
Drug Law Timeline

And for those who think there should be no debate re medical marijuana, at least look at some of the debates withint the AMA on that very subject such as here:
Medical Use of Marijuana Divides AMA Delegates ? Psychiatric News

For the potheads who are desperate to believe that marijuana is not addictive and the only ones who say it is are government sources, note that Marijuana addiction is one of the focus areas of the U.K.'s TeenChallenge program which is one of the most effective drug treatment programs for young people in the world.
Addictions | Dependence help from Teen Challenge

And California Rehab offers some good information:
Marijuana Addiction and Treatment - California Rehabilitation and Treatment

The AMA would not recommend that Marijuane remain a Schedule 1 controlled substance if they did not know the drug was addictive. All Schedule 1 drugs are considered addictive.

The American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the British Medical Association have issued statements that marijuana should remain a controlled substance or not be endorsed as a medication. The Drug Enforcement Agency has issued clear statements that it does not target sick or dying people who use marijuana, but criminals engaged in growing and trafficking in the drug.

Marijuana Addiction and Treatment - California Rehabilitation and Treatment

Again I have no dog in this fight, and I am not about to tell anybody whether they should or should not use marijuana unless they presume to do so on my property. But those of you who are not addicted, you should inform yourself of the facts and know the risks if you are going to put any potentially harmful substance in your body.

And no matter how many names you guys think up to call me, that will remain very good advice.

 

[ABikerSailor]

MJ laws were enacted at a time when the only people who were really using MJ were african-americans and hispanics.

Kind of like that Buffet song:

"And only Jazz Musicians were smoking Marijuana."

Some people will find race in every issue. I do not believe race was a factor when the laws were enacted. It was because of us long-haired hippy-types LOL

It wasn't just the hippies Miz Molly, it was the Blacks and the Hispanics...........

In 1937 the F.D. Roosevelt administration crafted the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, the first US national law making cannabis possession illegal via an unpayable tax on the drug.

The name marijuana (Mexican Spanish marihuana, mariguana) is associated almost exclusively with the plant's psychoactive use. The term is now well known in English largely due to the efforts of American drug prohibitionists during the 1920s and 1930s. The prohibitionists deliberately used a Mexican name for cannabis in order to turn the populace against the idea that it should be legal by playing to negative attitudes towards that nationality. (See 1937 Marihuana Tax Act). Those who demonized the drug by calling it marihuana omitted the fact that the "deadly marihuana" was identical to cannabis indica, which had at the time a reputation for pharmaceutical safety.[4] It should be noted, however, that due to variations in the potency of the preparations, cannabis indica in the 1930s had lost most of its former popularity as a medical drug.[5]

Legality of cannabis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The guy that started the whole mess was an FBI agent named Anslinger. He's also the guy that has created the current idea of cannabis that most people have in that it will make you hallucinate (it won't), will make you violent (it won't), will make you set fire to your house or do anything else you wouldn't do normally.

As a matter of fact, alcohol breaks down more inhibitions than marijuana does.

I'd advise you to take Faux Failure (FoxFyre) with a grain of salt. They are looking for anything that they can get their mitts on that will support their claims in the form of pineapple companies and rehabilitation places.

Incidentally, those figures from Faux Failure are questionable. If you want some real information, I'd suggest checking NORML's website.

They use real doctors and actual science on that site, not just propaganda.

 

[Kalam]

They do to an extent. I mean, there would be real harm in dumping opiates on the public. Few PO drugs are as dangerous as they are.

Acknowledged. I'm still skeptical of the government's true motives. My illusions of the "War on Drugs" having any legitimacy were shattered when I found out that the CIA is, or at least was, a major international trafficker of cocaine. I'm still absolutely bewildered by the absurdity of declaring certain drugs illegal, selling them behind the back of the population you're supposed to protect, and then imposing harsh penalties on those who peddle and purchase those substances on the retail level... but I digress as usual.

As for possession penalties, you won't hear me argue that they are fair and un-biased. However, that skips over the initial step of being illegal.

I don't think ecstasy is a good example, btw, it's a "club drug" that is generally used by middle and upper middle class white kids. I don't know much about MDMA, but I think a average dosage is about what 100 mg? So a gram is about ten pills.

I don't think that the criminalization of ecstasy involved ethnic discrimination or anything, I just think that it's an example of penalties run wild. Yeah, 100 mg seems to be near the high end of MDMA content for most tabs. Again, though, my understanding is that the actual content of the tablets doesn't matter to the fed as long as they contain and are sold as MDMA.

 

[JBeukema]

MJ laws were enacted at a time when the only people who were really using MJ were african-americans and hispanics.

Kind of like that Buffet song:

"And only Jazz Musicians were smoking Marijuana."

Some people will find race in every issue. I do not believe race was a factor when the laws were enacted. It was because of us long-haired hippy-types LOL

It was enacted before you idiots showed up.


It was enacted as a way to lock up Mexicans.


That's a simple fact of history.

 

[ABikerSailor]

They do to an extent. I mean, there would be real harm in dumping opiates on the public. Few PO drugs are as dangerous as they are.

Acknowledged. I'm still skeptical of the government's true motives. My illusions of the "War on Drugs" having any legitimacy were shattered when I found out that the CIA is, or at least was, a major international trafficker of cocaine. I'm still absolutely bewildered by the absurdity of declaring certain drugs illegal, selling them behind the back of the population you're supposed to protect, and then imposing harsh penalties on those who peddle and purchase those substances on the retail level... but I digress as usual.

As for possession penalties, you won't hear me argue that they are fair and un-biased. However, that skips over the initial step of being illegal.

I don't think ecstasy is a good example, btw, it's a "club drug" that is generally used by middle and upper middle class white kids. I don't know much about MDMA, but I think a average dosage is about what 100 mg? So a gram is about ten pills.

I don't think that the criminalization of ecstasy involved ethnic discrimination or anything, I just think that it's an example of penalties run wild. Yeah, 100 mg seems to be near the high end of MDMA content for most tabs. Again, though, my understanding is that the actual content of the tablets doesn't matter to the fed as long as they contain and are sold as MDMA.

Interesting little side note..........

MDMA (Ecstasy) was originally developed by psychologists as a way to bring a person's feelings of empathy and love closer to the surface of their conscious mind. And, when they developed this drug, they also took time to make sure it had no ill effects on the body.

They then tested it out on couples going through therapy. When the trials were over? The people taking it wanted to continue using it.

Ecstasy is not harmful. It's the pseudo ecstasy that causes problems, not pharmaceutical grade stuff.

 

[geauxtohell]

They do to an extent. I mean, there would be real harm in dumping opiates on the public. Few PO drugs are as dangerous as they are.

Acknowledged. I'm still skeptical of the government's true motives. My illusions of the "War on Drugs" having any legitimacy were shattered when I found out that the CIA is, or at least was, a major international trafficker of cocaine. I'm still absolutely bewildered by the absurdity of declaring certain drugs illegal, selling them behind the back of the population you're supposed to protect, and then imposing harsh penalties on those who peddle and purchase those substances on the retail level... but I digress as usual.

As for possession penalties, you won't hear me argue that they are fair and un-biased. However, that skips over the initial step of being illegal.

I don't think ecstasy is a good example, btw, it's a "club drug" that is generally used by middle and upper middle class white kids. I don't know much about MDMA, but I think a average dosage is about what 100 mg? So a gram is about ten pills.

I don't think that the criminalization of ecstasy involved ethnic discrimination or anything, I just think that it's an example of penalties run wild. Yeah, 100 mg seems to be near the high end of MDMA content for most tabs. Again, though, my understanding is that the actual content of the tablets doesn't matter to the fed as long as they contain and are sold as MDMA.

I'd imagine the government isn't terribly concerned with the purity of the MDMA as long as it is anywhere near the amount to be psychoactive.

I am more bewildered how an amphetamine can work in the manner like MDMA does. It's like methylphenadate (ritalin) being used to help people concentrate. It's paradoxical. However, there is so much about the brain that we don't know. I know that, comparative to cocaine, which blocks norepinephrine uptake, amphetamines stimulate it's release and block it's re-uptake and have a longer half life.

Sorry for the digression.

At any rate, I think it's interesting that MDMA is being used to treat extreme PTSD (at least in clinical trials).

Ecstasy is the key to treating PTSD - Times Online

 

[geauxtohell]

They do to an extent. I mean, there would be real harm in dumping opiates on the public. Few PO drugs are as dangerous as they are.

Acknowledged. I'm still skeptical of the government's true motives. My illusions of the "War on Drugs" having any legitimacy were shattered when I found out that the CIA is, or at least was, a major international trafficker of cocaine. I'm still absolutely bewildered by the absurdity of declaring certain drugs illegal, selling them behind the back of the population you're supposed to protect, and then imposing harsh penalties on those who peddle and purchase those substances on the retail level... but I digress as usual.

As for possession penalties, you won't hear me argue that they are fair and un-biased. However, that skips over the initial step of being illegal.

I don't think ecstasy is a good example, btw, it's a "club drug" that is generally used by middle and upper middle class white kids. I don't know much about MDMA, but I think a average dosage is about what 100 mg? So a gram is about ten pills.

I don't think that the criminalization of ecstasy involved ethnic discrimination or anything, I just think that it's an example of penalties run wild. Yeah, 100 mg seems to be near the high end of MDMA content for most tabs. Again, though, my understanding is that the actual content of the tablets doesn't matter to the fed as long as they contain and are sold as MDMA.

Interesting little side note..........

MDMA (Ecstasy) was originally developed by psychologists as a way to bring a person's feelings of empathy and love closer to the surface of their conscious mind. And, when they developed this drug, they also took time to make sure it had no ill effects on the body.

They then tested it out on couples going through therapy. When the trials were over? The people taking it wanted to continue using it.

Ecstasy is not harmful. It's the pseudo ecstasy that causes problems, not pharmaceutical grade stuff.

We posted on top of each other, anyways the link I posted has some good info about it. It is an amphetamine, so it's not harmless but I think you are right that a lot of the hysteria about the drug is due to impure street drugs being sold as MDMA.

 

[Douger]

Gee, no one died from a fire, slip and fall, bicycle, bear or any number of other things not included on your list. Wonder how many people were high when they died in the car accident, were hunting with a firearm or used another drug in conjunction with marijuana?

That's the problem with statistics. Most of the time, people who are smoking pot are also doing other drugs, including alcohol. That's why the statistics here are almost completely meaningless. Except the obvious one - no person EVER has died of an overdose of marijuana.

The fact of the matter is that marijuana is significantly less dangerous a drug than alcohol or cigarettes - and the fact that it is illegal while the others are not is due not to facts about the drug, but other political maneuvering.

It's also necessary to consider that marijuana-related illnesses and incidents (such as traffic accidents) are usually just lumped into the stats for other substances. The stats for the health effects of tobacco, for example, are derived from statistics on a variety of health problems linked to tobacco, whether the sufferer actually smoked or not. This means that if long-term marijuana smoking DID cause lung cancer and emphysemia, we'd never know because it would just be labeled a "smoking-related death" and left at that.

Likewise, people DO get in traffic accidents under the influence of marijuana for the same reasons they do with alcohol: both of them screw with your reaction time and judgement ability. But a DUI is a DUI, and they all get counted together, not separated out by WHAT you were "under the influence" of.

Another thing to consider is that marijuana use, being illegal, isn't anything like as widespread as either alcohol and tobacco, so OF COURSE it doesn't have comparable statistics.

I know FAR more people that smoke weed than cigarettes.

 

[csbarry]

Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
- 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
- 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.

You would have been better served. and dealt with far fewer far reaching comments had you asked why cigarettes and alcohol are legal and marijuana isn't. Then your theory of marijuana being far less harmful or deadly is certainly justifiable. For the record, I believe that all three should be legal. It should be an individuals choice whether to partake or not. If all three cannot be legal, all three should be illegal. Just because the government cannot tax all the marijuana that might be available, is no reason to outlaw it; nor is it a reason for legally destroying an individuals life.

 

[csbarry]

Here's something for ya' all to chew on ...

Legal history of cannabis in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know........Carrie Nation proved that prohibition didn't work. Matter of fact, that is where organized crime got it's biggest growth spurt.

Now? We've got the same problem at the border with drugs and violence and crime. If cannabis was legal, I'd be willing to bet that you'd see a lot of the cartels convert over to cannabis cultivation, because if it was legal and able to be imported here, they wouldn't have to use violence and crime.

Incidentally, when you've got a choice between cocaine (illegal) and cannabis (hopefully legal soon), you naturally go towards the choice that is the least hassle.

Want to know why prohibition never works? Because people want a release to get rid of their stress.

Incidentally, cannabis testing on people with PTSD has shown great promise in helping them out.

 

[Father Time]

What exactly was Carrie Nation? Was it anything like this:

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's the problem with statistics. Most of the time, people who are smoking pot are also doing other drugs, including alcohol. That's why the statistics here are almost completely meaningless. Except the obvious one - no person EVER has died of an overdose of marijuana.

The fact of the matter is that marijuana is significantly less dangerous a drug than alcohol or cigarettes - and the fact that it is illegal while the others are not is due not to facts about the drug, but other political maneuvering.

It's also necessary to consider that marijuana-related illnesses and incidents (such as traffic accidents) are usually just lumped into the stats for other substances. The stats for the health effects of tobacco, for example, are derived from statistics on a variety of health problems linked to tobacco, whether the sufferer actually smoked or not. This means that if long-term marijuana smoking DID cause lung cancer and emphysemia, we'd never know because it would just be labeled a "smoking-related death" and left at that.

Likewise, people DO get in traffic accidents under the influence of marijuana for the same reasons they do with alcohol: both of them screw with your reaction time and judgement ability. But a DUI is a DUI, and they all get counted together, not separated out by WHAT you were "under the influence" of.

Another thing to consider is that marijuana use, being illegal, isn't anything like as widespread as either alcohol and tobacco, so OF COURSE it doesn't have comparable statistics.

I know FAR more people that smoke weed than cigarettes.

Which says a lot about YOU - not that it was much of a revelation to anyone who's experienced your complete lack of anything to add - and ****-all about society at large. Thanks for continuing your unbroken trend of having nothing whatsoever to add.

 

[Toro]

The War on Drugs has been an unmitigated disaster.

Too many are in prison for ridiculous sentences, we spend billions and billions every year to incarcerate people, it corrupts nations, it funds terrorists and it gives enormous wealth and power to criminal syndicates.

Those arguing prohibition seem not to understand how markets work. There is demand, it will be supplied. If it is made illegal, then the price will go up, drawing in organized crime who will supply that demand. Better that it be legalized, taxed and regulated so that the profits and proceeds can go to law-abiding people and to fund spending.

 

[Ava]

Why are two of the above legal but the one isn't?
- 75000 die a year from alcohol related incidents.
- 0 die a year from Marijuana related incidents.
Why the hell can you drink as much alcohol as you want in America but a person can't smoke a joint without worrying about doing jail time? Simple question, please answer to the point.

To answer your topic question: One isn't a mind altering substance. Just really enjoyable. I don't miss it though....[well once in a while]

 

[jessica]

The only reason marijuana is ever a gateway drug is because it exposes peaceful pot smokers to the dealers who are likely to also traffic other, more dangerous sustances. If we could just walk into our local liquor store or drug store and purchase a federally-regulated and taxed product like we can with booze and cigs, then our upstanding, de-criminalized stoners could get on with their lives without worrying about going to prison with rapists and murderers just for passing the peace pipe.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know.........pot is no more a "gateway drug" than alcohol is.

And yes, you're right Jessica, if it was available at the corner convenience store, the exposure to other drugs would be greatly lessened.

Good point.

 

[Richie90]

I think all of them do not have any much differences. They are all harmful and bad to human's health.