ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:44 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 4:08 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4330
Location: The Murky depths of Northern Virginia
...dude...Megs...you need to chiiillll...

*rolls a joint for I_M*

Also, I find that whole post stupid, un-founded, and idiotic.

EDIT: one thing I was un-lazy enough to address:
Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
Yeah. They're gonna smoke less of it because it's more potent than what Cheech and Chong were smoking way back when. Right. Next the army is going to downgrade all their guns to 2mm because bigger bullets are overkill and wasteful of lead.


Your analogy is flawed. What would be proper is saying the army will use less bombs because they are more powerful and get the job done quicker.

Oh wait? They are doing that?

_________________
BDM was here


Last edited by BDM05 on Mon Jul 26, 2004 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 4:45 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3706
Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
ptlis wrote:
I don't think there are any drugs where the withdrawl is this bad, but if there are please inform me of them.


There are several, most of which aren't as popular because of the serious withdrawal symptoms. And I was referring more to the effects of the drugs themselves than the effects of withdrawing them.


Yes, but you specifically said cannabis was one of them, which it plainly is not.


Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
ptlis wrote:
This is true but I feel the need to point out that it is a very temporery effect (not much longer than 4hours depending on a number of variables such as motabolism, the strength of the cannabis you ate/smoked and whether or not you topped the level up.


I'm not talking about the high, which I am quite aware of how it is only temporary. I have a friend who used to smoke pot and do some harder stuff. I'm talking long-term. Alcohol and drugs kill brain cells. They make you stupid. You ever notice how long-time pot smokers take a few seconds to become aware of the obvious?


No, I have not apart from within said ~4hour duration of the high; and anecdotal evidence is shakey at best to prove anything (or else we get a game of "I know somebody who..." , "But I know somebody who...").


Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
ptlis wrote:
Once again this is true when smoked, and even then there are devices such as bongs and vapourisors which minimise the damage done to your lungs rather effectively (vapourisors considerably more than bongs).


Less harmful doesn't mean non-harmful. Unless it's a necessary part of daily life, such as driving, I like to avoid anything that's going to decrease my lifespan significantly.


I like they way you did not heed the point that cannabis is not always smoked and that alot of the time it is prepared with food or drink (examples include hash brownies, hot-chocolate, ice-cream and bhang).


Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
ptlis wrote:
I will take your meaning of stupid as people who have lower than average intelligence and will agree with you to some extent, but consider this: without such manual labour society as you know it could not exist.


Whiiiiiiiich is why we're putting them to work as manual labor. Remember what I said about it taking potheads a few seconds to become aware of the obvious?


I fail to see the thrust of this argument. Smoking cannabis or taking any illegal drug does not mean that the person has below average intelligence; this will be the case some of the time but you cannot corrolate the use of such illegal substances with intelligence levels.


Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
ptlis wrote:
Heh, right. As long as a person is compotent at doing the job they are employed to do then what they do in their own time is irrelevent, as long as it does not interfere with what they have to do.


A persons personal life affects the lives of those around them. Children who know an authority figure/role model who smokes pot are more likely to smoke it. And guess what the odds are that they'll do so "responsibly"? Yeah, about the same as Linux buying out Microsoft. Simply being a competent worked isn't an excuse. I could write an entire post in reply to this statement, but I'm lazy.


Your assertion that a person's personal life effects the people around them most of the time; but this is not always the case. Yes, a child who knows a responsible adult who smokes cannabis probably is more likely to do so themselves when they are older because they can see that there is no ill effect; And yes, I do believe that they would do so responsibly, sure there will always be the minority group who do not but it would be unfair to tar all the people who are responible with this brush. By the same logic guns should be banned because the small number of adults who are not responsible for their actions could leave them in a place where a child could get them. And please, if you feel so strongly about this part then <b>do</b> write an entire post about this statement; put your money where your mouth is.


Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
ptlis wrote:
You seem to think that people who use drugs (whether soft or hard) do so 24/7... They don't, not even crack/smack addicts are that bad (I think they usually go for 1-2 fixes a day - not too sure on this one).


Doesn't matter if they're doped up 24/7 or just an hour or two each day. They're screwed up. Period.


That's your opinion; but considering how ill informed you apper to be as well as your closed mindedness with regards to the subject you are in no plade to judge anything.


Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
ptlis wrote:
There is no supposed. The theraputic effect has been shown to calm the shuddering seen in patients suffering parkinsons, it has been shown to help people suffering from aids/on chemo therapy eat more food and keep it down. There are many theraputic effects of the medical use of cannabis (and remember that morphine is used in medicine, and is also an illegal drug which is very addictive).


Yeah, and morphine is being used less and less because, guess what, it fucks up the patients. There are alternatives to cannabis that aren't as harmful and may or may not be as effective. As I said, with a prescription by a licensed physician, I don't have a problem with it. I'm pretty sure that a doctor knows more about it than I do. But unlicensed use of it just to get stoned, which is what everyone wants it for, medical validity regardless, ain't happening as long as I get a say about it.


Once again, put your money where your mouth is. Please tell me what these alternatives are so that I can do research on them because i've never heard of any which have proven to have as good theraputic results as cannabis (this is not to say that they do not exist; it may just be my ignorence regarding the matter; make me less ignorent). I'd also like to see some text regarding doctors using less morphine because I have been informed of no such trend.


Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
ptlis wrote:
Sorry but I have to call bullshit; it is not physically addictive at all.


It is physically addicting. I've had three physicians, a reformed pothead, and a current pothead confirm that for me. That's like saying tobacco or alcohol aren't physically addicting and I can quit any time I want to.


Once again this is merely anecdotal evidence. Please, show me a study which proves that cannabisis physically adictive and I might start taking this point seriously.


Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
ptlis wrote:
This may or may not be the case but so what if the potency is increased. All it means is that for the people who smoke it they have to smoke less to get an equivalent high; this can only have positive effects meaning that less carcenogens, soot etc are inhaled into the lungs thusly less damage will be done over the long term.


Yeah. They're gonna smoke less of it because it's more potent than what Cheech and Chong were smoking way back when. Right. Next the army is going to downgrade all their guns to 2mm because bigger bullets are overkill and wasteful of lead.


You've missed the point. The amount of the active chemical (THC) which they take into their body will remain the same but the amount of vegatable matter they have to smoke/ingest would decrease which leads back to the point about it being harmful; the less vegetable matter which needs to be smoked to get high the less hot smoke the person will take into the lungs; the less hot smoke they take into their lungs the less damage will be done in the long term meaning that an increase in the potency of the average yeild can only be considered a good thing unless it is being used as FUD against an uninformed person or group of peoples.

Additionally I would appreciate a reply with regards to the following point that I made in my previous post in this thread:

ptlis wrote:
Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
Since people know the downsides of marijuana and smoke it anyway, they're stupid.

That is your opinion and perhaps you are justified in it (if you are as clean as you say you are); but then if you eat red meat, alot of spicey food or do any dangerous activities such as driving a car or crossing a busy road then you are stupid. Rhese are dangerous and/or have negative long-term problems associated with them so by your logic anybody who knows of these dangers is stupid.


Please stop dancing around the issues and posting anecdotal evidance to prove your assertions; if you want to debate the subject do a bit of reasarch and find some sources for your claims, because so far you have not given evidence to back up a single one of your claims.

ptlis

_________________
There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies
within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 28, 2004 7:14 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
Oh jeez. There are some silly rumours being spread around that people are taking rather seriously. But this give me an oppotunity to get out my encyclopedia:

<img src=http://irev.net/dragonglyph/bored04.jpg></img>
:D

-------------

First, I'm going to give you a little story. This is mainly aimed at I_M, even though it was admitted that prescription was alright.

Quote:
California author and publisher Peter Williams was diagnosed wth both AIDS and cancer in 1996. Under his doctor's supervision, McWilliams began to smoke marijuana to quell the nausea caused by the combination drug therapy he took to keep the AIDS virus at undetectable levels. He believed that he was doing so legally under California's Proposition 215. This state law, passed in 1996, prohibits the prosecution of those who use marijuana for medical reasons.

In July 1998, however, McWilliams was arrested and tried for collaborating in the illegal growth of marijuana plants. He was prosecuted under a federal law prohibiting the cultivation of marijuana, and the federal judge would not allow him to plead his defense under California's Proposition 215, stating that the federal legislation superseded the state law. McWilliams was found guilty, and although he was allowed to serve his sentence at home, his urine was regularly tested for marijuana: If any traces were found in his system, he would be returned to prison. On June 14, 2000, racked with nausea, McWilliams died by choking on his own vomit - a death that some people believed might have been prevented if McWilliams had been allowed to continue controlling his nausea with marijuana.


Now, I have some quotes on why the State laws of growing and smoking your own Cannabis for medical purposes should be illegal.

James R. McDonough wrote:
Compounds found in marijuana may have medical potential, but science does not support smoking the plant in its crude form as an appropriate delivery system. An exploration of two comprehensive inquiries into medical potential of marijuana indicates the following:

- Science has identified only the potential medical benefit of chemical compounds, such as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), found in marijuana. Ambitious research is neccessary to understand fully how these substances affect the human body.

- Experts who have dealt with all available data do not recommend that the goal of research should be smoked marijuana for medical conditions. Rather, they support development of a smoke-free, rapid-onset delivery system for compounds found in the plant


As it is, when cannabis is ingested, it takes about an hour to two hours (depending on content in the stomach and metabolism) to take into effect. The duration of the "high" lasts for three to four hours afterwards. When cannabis is smoked, the effects kick in immediately and last one to two hours with some negative side effects in your lungs.

James R. McDonough wrote:
Nevertheless, the IOM [Institute of Medicine] report concluded that cannabinoid drugs do have potential for theraputic use. It specifically named pain, nausea and vomiting, and lack of appetite as symptoms for which cannabinoids may be of benefit, stating that cannabinoids "probably have a natural role in pain modulation, control of movement, and memory," but that this role "is likely to be multi-faceted and remains unclear."


I've found the information you were looking for. Alternatives to smoking marijuana.

James R. McDonough wrote:
On the "benefits" side, the Institute of Medicine found that the theraputic effects of cannabinoids are "generally modest" and that for the majority of symptoms there are approved drugs that are more effective. For example, superior glaucoma and anti-nausea medications have already been developed. In addition, the new drug Zofran may provide more relief than THC for chemotherapy patients. Dronabino, the synthetic THC, offers immunocompromised HIV patients a safe alternative to inhaling marijuana smoke, which contains carcinogens.


Let me just remind everyone that <b>all drugs</b> (OTC, prescription, or illegal) have negative side effects. All drugs. I've been told this by many professionals at the hospital, and by many psychiatrists when they talk about why they want to be able to reduce their patient's drug intake. And this is why herbal remedies and aromatherapy are preferred to using Tylonel or Advil or Aleve or etc.

-------------

ADDICTIVENESS OF CANNABIS OH EM GEE.

Abunai, firstly, don't believe what your health class is telling you about the drug, because it's mostly likely based off biased scientific studies. If you need examples on the different expirements that have been held and cancled due to professional control of expiremental bias.

Due to most general defintions: Marijuana is one of the least physically addictive drugs, HOWEVER, it can be psychologically addictive.

Paul Hager wrote:
It should be remembered, however, that a heavy tobacco smoker consumes much more tobacco than a heacy marijuana smoker consumes marijuana. This is because smoked tobacco, with a 90% addiction rate, is the most addictive of drugs while marijuana is less addictive than caffeine.


Now, to go to the bias against legalizing marijuana, I have an essay on its addictiveness that you may find interesting.

Ingrid Wickelgren wrote:
But withdrawal is just one component of addiction. Addictive drugs also have immediate rewarding, or reinforcing, effects that keep people and animals coming back for more. The drugs produce these effects, scientists believe, by hijacking the brain's so-called reward system. A key event in the reward pathway is the release of dopamine by a small cluster of neurons in a brain region called the nucleus accumbens. Researchers think the dopamine release normally serves to reinforce behaviors that lead to biologically important rewards, such as food or sex. Addictive drugs are thought to lead to compulsive behavior because they unleash a dopamine surge of their own.




Peter the addiction specialist at Dominion wrote:
Anything is addictive [in a psychological prospect].

Peter was telling us about this six year old he was councling who claimed he would kill his parents if it meant he could spend more time playing video games. I asked about the internet and if it was addictive as well. *cough*

-------------

Okay. This is what I know from a PBS special about the brain. They did a special 15 minutes explaining one aspect of marijuana when it was time to study the teenage brain. (My parents had me watch this enlightening hour, but it was interesting, so I didn't mind.)

First off, when you experience a high from THC, it raises your dopamine levels to above where they could naturally go from any physical activity (including sex). Naturally, this makes a person feel exceptionally pleasured.

However, after repeated use for a long period of time, the dopamine receptors will wear out because of the barrage they are continually receiving. So when you are not high, your receptors will not be as sensitive, and you may suffer a slight depression that will continually grow worse as you age.

However, you'd have to be smoking nearly every other day for a couple of years for this to even begin to happen. Still, it's a negative consequence that shouldn't be neglected.

-------------

The dumbness of pot heads has to do with short-term memory.

Paul Hager wrote:
<b>9>Marijuana impairs short-term memory.</b>
This is true, but misleading. Any impairment of short-term memory disappears when one is no longer under the influence of marijuana.


George Biernson wrote:
Whan a person smokes marijuana, no more than 25% of the THC is absorbed into the blood. About 40% of the THC that enters the body is stored deeply in body fat. The fat releases the THC into the blood with a half=life of one week, which means that if a person stops smoking pot it takes one week for the stored THC to drop to 1/2, two weeks to drop to 1/4, etc. Every week that the THC is stored in the fat, it will decrease by one-half.


Paul Hager wrote:
<b>Marijuana lingers in the body like DDT.</b>
This is also true but misleading. Cannabinoids are fat soluble as are innumerable nutrients and yes, some poisons like DDT. For example, the essential nutrient, Vitamin A, is fat soluable but one never hears people who favor marijuana prohibition making this comparison.


I'm unsure as to whether this means that the short-term memory is impared for a longer time due to the fat soluble properties of the cannabinoids. But that would explain your potheads idiocies.

-------------

If you all really should be debating whether this should be illegal or not - look at the Netherlands. They have legalized marijuana, and black market funds on drugs have dropped significantly. Crime rates have been down. And there were surprisingly low amounts of people who started smoking more regularly due to its legality. I'd venture you to look at drug-related deaths as well, and see that they're lower than before as well.

Buying illegal marijuana is taking a risk whether or not it's been sprayed with other chemicals or laced with other drugs to induce more profits for the dealers.

Also, I would like studies that compare marijuana's prohibition to alcohol's brief prohibition.

-------------

My whole stance is that cannabis should be legalized. Not advertised on television; only sold to 18 years and older; completely regulated by the government. (Like tobacco cigarettes, which can be identified and debated as so much worse for you than marijuana.) I would like there to be awareness and good information for the youth, so everybody knows exactly what they are getting into if they decide to take marijuana. And make it illegal to be high and drive, or high and at work - just as you would alcohol. Common sense.

Anyways. I hope I've given enough information so that a decent debate with real facts may ensue.

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 3:23 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2885
Location: San Antonio
A little pharmacology for you, Marijuana contains over 80 psychoactive cannabanoids, and over 100 more that we are unsure of what they do. THC alone is not the whole picture and you have a good chance of losing alot of the important medicinal effect by distilling out more than one ingredient.

Science is just opposed to any kind of natural or herbal medicine that does not come in a pill or a shot.

I hate to sound like a hippie but just because something is a leaf or a root and not a fucking pill, doesn't mean it doesn't have value.

_________________
We used to play for silver, Now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife, Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall,
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all, Not with all...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 3:50 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2885
Location: San Antonio
ptlis wrote:
Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
ptlis wrote:
I don't think there are any drugs where the withdrawl is this bad, but if there are please inform me of them.


There are several, most of which aren't as popular because of the serious withdrawal symptoms. And I was referring more to the effects of the drugs themselves than the effects of withdrawing them.


The two most dangerous withdrawals are

1) Barbituric Acid Derivatives. I.E. Seconal, Tuinal etc.

2) Alcohol, yes, that's right. the Good ol' DTs.

Both are CNS depressants and both have Delirium Tremor type withdrawal which can kill the victim. Muscle Spasms, intense pain extreme stress on the system.

Barbiturates are faster addicting and the DTs are more intense and more often fatal.

Heroin is next on the list of unpleasant withdrawal. It is agony for weeks, but not fatal except through suicide.

_________________
We used to play for silver, Now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife, Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall,
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all, Not with all...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 5:46 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
Clay_Allison wrote:
A little pharmacology for you, Marijuana contains over 80 psychoactive cannabanoids, and over 100 more that we are unsure of what they do. THC alone is not the whole picture and you have a good chance of losing alot of the important medicinal effect by distilling out more than one ingredient.

Science is just opposed to any kind of natural or herbal medicine that does not come in a pill or a shot.

I hate to sound like a hippie but just because something is a leaf or a root and not a fucking pill, doesn't mean it doesn't have value.


I have to agree with you on that - I mean that there is more than just THC. Marijuana, as a whole, in that essay is displayed as having a lot of potential, most of it unknown. However, what I quoted was just what they said was proven more affective at relieving the specific symptoms.

What I would like to know is what side effects those drugs have on their own. I'm always opposed to popping prescriptions if nearly the same desired effect can be acheived with a natural herbal medicine. Herbal medicines have tendencies to interact better with your body, causing less harmful or intrusive side effects. Also - herbs are not usually addictive while many synthasized chemicals are (like Tylonel).

It is likely that even though Zofran has more hazardous long-term effects on the chemotherapy patient, and may introduce new side effects that would otherwise not exist if the patient was ingesting marijuana.

If I were seriously writing a thesis, I'd actually research it. But I can't be bothered right now.

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 6:42 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:43 pm
Posts: 1944
Location: In front of the computer, doing things best left undescribed
Even though I lost interest in this debate, I just want to point out that I did not include weed in the list of drugs with horrible withdrawal symptoms. It was included in the list of drugs/addictions that would get people into my forced labor camps when I conquer the earth. If you somehow misunderstood that or deliberately misinterpreted it to look clever and proceeded to mentally masturbate at your mental victory, you're a fucking idiot.

As I said, I have no problem it being prescribed by a licensed physician who knows what he's doing a lot more than I do. But just allowing everyone to have full access to it? Yeah, that's stupid. It's going to be abused faster than a prepubescent orphan girl who's just been left on the front step of the pedophiles anonymous meeting hall.

_________________
Insane_Megalamaniac
Chancellor of Initiations
Image
Pyro: Noun. Practicioner of the ancient and gentle arts of burning shit down and blowing shit up.

DNI'd by actor_au


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 7:43 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
But just allowing everyone to have full access to it? Yeah, that's stupid. It's going to be abused faster than a prepubescent orphan girl who's just been left on the front step of the pedophiles anonymous meeting hall.


How's it going to be more abused than it already is?

(Must I go and research the Netherlands? Will I go and research differnt European countries that have decrimilized it? And should I go look up Australian usage while I'm at it?)

Honestly, having it prohibited leaves to it being illegally obtained. Because, illegal or not, people are going to smoke it. But if the American government regulates it, they'd have funding to fight terrorism, rather than the funds going to "fuel terrorism" as the anti-drug campaigns are saying. Usage of heroin and cocaine would decrease as a result from not being pressured by the dealer, and not having anything addictive laced in the marijuana. (I could give you so many quotes on the negative-gateway effect it has and what specifically that propaganda tool has been used for.) Crime rates and police arresting for drug control would be down, because pot dealers would be out of business - or selling to an older crowd.

It's like how prohibition on alcohol helped create the black market. The illegality of the substance was so inconvientient and disasterous that America had to repeal the law. Damage was already done, and by doing the same thing with marijuana, it has helped to further black market business.

And I might as well tell you the reason why marijuana was made illegal to begin with. (many drugs were made illegal because of similar reasons - not due to abuse)

My essay wrote:
If cannabis is such a terrible drug as many would have you to believe, then it’s easy to see why it was outlawed in the first place. Wrong! Cannabis was outlawed in many states mainly due to the US-Mexican War (1846-1848). After the war was over, many of the Mexican soldiers (who were known for smoking primarily marijuana) immigrated to the South Eastern United States. When the Great Depression began in the early 1900’s, fights broke out over the loss of jobs. The uprising for this violence was blamed on the Mexicans and their use of marijuana, with no studies or statistics for the politicians to prove their words.3* The fact is that marijuana was banned purely on racial issues that no longer exist in American law documents today.

3Julin, Brian S. "How and why was hemp made illegal?" Cannabis-Marijuana FAQ. 31 Mar. 2004
<http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~verdant/Marijuana_FAQ/X0020_1_How_and_why_was_he.html>.


Acutally... I'm just going to post my essay. It's crap, because I wrote it up quickly. But all the information is true.

Crap essay, but it got me a 99/100 and lots of compliments from the teacher wrote:
Sarah Osborne
April 6, 2004
07

The legalization of the recreational use of Cannabis

There are many other stories of leaders with a history of cannabis usage, including the likes of William Clinton, Newt Ginrich, Al Gore, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Judge Marquat, and Clarence Thomas. Musicians commonly smoked marijuana as well, like the members of the Beatles and the Grateful Dead.1 This was all recreationally used marijuana that may have even helped to inspire their work.
For instance, it can be said that the famous author and occultist, Aleister Crowley, traveled around the world in search of his own spirituality. In 1909, after forming Argenteum Astrum and divorcing his wife because of her alcoholism, Crowley turned to start living very alternative lifestyles. Cannabis, among other psychedelic drugs, was used to alter his state of consciousness, allowing him to acknowledge certain philosophies and beliefs previously unrecognized beforehand. This is because marijuana has been known to increase alpha wave activity within the brain (alpha waves are associated with meditative and relaxed states of the mind). Just a short while after, in 1910, Crowley was contacted by the Ordo Templi Orientis and became the head of the English speaking branch in 1912. He’s published several well known and influential books such as The Book of Law, The Book of Thoth, Eight Lectures on Yoga, The Holy Books of Thelma, and The Equinox of the Gods.

It is my proposal that cannabis be legalized not only for medicinal usage, but legalized for recreational use for the public of whose ages are that of eighteen years of age or older in the United States of America. Many anti-drug corporations, such as the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, have perpetuated lies in media supported campaigns, causing the general census to believe in myths that have been proven incorrect by more recent studies than those in the 1970’s. In fact, marijuana may actually prove beneficial to not only creative thinking, but also to lower the amount of people using harsher drugs such as cocaine and heroine. Decrimilizing cannabis may actually be a productive step forward to support the ideals of the war against drugs currently raging.

If cannabis is such a terrible drug as many would have you to believe, then it’s easy to see why it was outlawed in the first place. Wrong! Cannabis was outlawed in many states mainly due to the US-Mexican War (1846-1848). After the war was over, many of the Mexican soldiers (who were known for smoking primarily marijuana) immigrated to the South Eastern United States. When the Great Depression began in the early 1900’s, fights broke out over the loss of jobs. The uprising for this violence was blamed on the Mexicans and their use of marijuana, with no studies or statistics for the politicians to prove their words.3 The fact is that marijuana was banned purely on racial issues that no longer exist in American law documents today.

However, the anti-drug corporations have found other “reasons” (i.e. distorted statistics and lies) to justify their battle with cannabis. I will clear up a few myths for the curious reader, by beginning with a study done by Dr. Robert Heath, done in the late 1970’s. This study was reviewed by a panel of distinguished scientists sponsored by the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences.

Dr. Heath of Tulane Medical School did extensive studies of the effect of marijuana on the brains of monkeys. One such typical study was to allow a monkey to smoke two joints of pot per day containing 2.5% THC, five days per week for six months. It showed that after two months, the monkey’s brain waves from the limbic system, were permanently damaged.4 In 1982, after being cancelled by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, his work was highly criticized for its insufficient sample size (four monkeys), its failure to control experimental bias, and the misidentification of the normal brain structure as “damaged.”5 Actual studies on the human population, published in magazines such as the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) have shown no evidence of brain damage, even in heavy users of marijuana.

Dr. Gabriel Nahas experimented with tissue cells isolated in Petri dishes, again, in the 1970’s. He determined that marijuana caused severe damage to T-lymphocytes (the primary white blood cells associated with immune defenses). When, in fact, have doctors not only been unable to reproduce these results in other studies, but in 1988, J.M. Wallace found that white blood cells production increased in responsiveness to immunological activators.6

Smoking cannabis is often compared to smoking tobacco, and many claim that the contents in a marijuana cigarette put the user at greater risk to develop lung disease. If one is to stress quantity, three to five marijuana cigarettes are usually smoked, while tobacco users average at about ten cigarettes a day. But the nature of the marijuana largely affects the lung’s larger airways, so that chronic bronchitis and emphysema are rarely seen. Tobacco leaves the user at greater risk to develop the more serious illness, because of its habit to block smaller airways.

Many people regard cannabis as dangerous because of its psychoactive effects. It is true that cannabis will affect motor skill functioning, but it is to the same degree as alcohol. But both drugs should be used with responsibility. One does not get drunk before flying a plane or operating heavy machinery, as one should not be high under the influence of marijuana when doing the same thing. As for as driving is concerned, a recent study sponsored by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found only 6.7 % of drivers tested positive for marijuana. In more than two-thirds of that percentage, alcohol was present and may have been the primary contributor to the fatal outcome.7

By far, the biggest controversial issue is whether cannabis is a “gateway” drug, a drug that will leads to harder drugs such as heroine, LSD, and cocaine. Many of the statistics are skewed because many people who use heroine or cocaine have smoked pot, but many pot smokers have never used heroine or cocaine. This new claim by those who would keep cannabis from legalization has been thoroughly looked at. Charts of marijuana, heroine, cocaine, and LSD use have been compared, and no patterns have been consistently related to each other in the least. An experiment in the Netherlands has been conducted, where the public has been allowed to purchase small amounts of cannabis (In other words, the Netherlands legalized pot). Since 1976, hard use of heroine and cocaine has actually declined substantially.8

Prohibition may prove to be the real cause of the “gateway” effect. Because the only options for those who wish to smoke cannabis are left with either growing their own or buying from the Black Market, many choose to support the Black Market, which funds the harder drugs (and terrorism, if you are concerned about national safety). Three facts should be kept in mind. “There is no guaranteed quality control to ensure that the cannabis is of consistent quality and free from impurities. There is no age limit. There is no guarantee that the seller is not selling other drugs as well.”9 If marijuana was decriminalized, there would be regulation. This prohibition of cannabis is much like the Prohibition on alcohol in the early 1920’s. The laws don’t prevent people from using cannabis, but only serve to add to the statistics of those who are arrested. Crime rates increase because more and more people open their mind to trying a relatively harmless drug, by which I mean that marijuana is no worse than tobacco or alcohol. This business fuels the Black Market, promotes political corruption, and blinds people by their own ignorance.

Cannabis should be seen for what it is, instead of what the media claims. Less addictive than caffeine, and impossible to overdose on; marijuana is far from the demon mass marketing makes it out to be. By making this drug illegal, not only is the US promoting racism towards Mexican heritage, but it is stifling future creators and religious leaders and their practices, and promoting funding towards the Black Market and towards terrorism itself. But… at least the policeman will have a secure job.


Bibliography wrote:
Bibliography

1Famous Drug Users. 31 Mar. 2004 <http://www.soveriegn.freeservers.com/drugs.htm>.

2"CANNABIS TIMELINE." The Vaults of Erowid. 31 Mar. 2004 <http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/
cannabis_timeline.php3>.

3Julin, Brian S. "How and why was hemp made illegal?" Cannabis-Marijuana FAQ. 31 Mar. 2004
<http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~verdant/Marijuana_FAQ/X0020_1_How_and_why_was_he.html>.

4Bierson, George. "Marijuana, the Deceptive Drug." Massachusetts News Jan. 2004.

5Hager, Paul. "Marijuana Myths." The Libertarian Corner 1996. 31 Mar. 2004
<http://www.cs.indiana.edu/hyplan/hagerp/drugwar.html>.

6Wallace, J.M. et al, "Peripheral Blood Lymphocyte Subpopulations and Mitogen Responsiveness in Tobacco and Marijuana Smokers," Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20:9-14 (1988).

7Terhune, K.W. et al, The Incidence and Role of Drugs in Fatally Injured Drivers, Washington, DC: Department of Transportation (1994).

8Hager, Paul. "Myths About the Harmful Effects of Marijuana." Marijuana, Contemporary Issues
Companion. 2002.

9"Fighting for the relegalisation of cannabis in Ireland." The Cannabis Ireland Alliance . 31 Mar.
2004 <http://www.cannabisireland.com/harddrugs.html>.


I don't know if I'm making sense here. Maybe I should just quote this:

John P. Morgan and Lynn Zimmer wrote:
It is hardly a revelation that people who use one of the least poopular drugs are likely to use the more popular ones - not only marijuana, but also alcohol and tobacco cigarettes. The obvious statistic not publisized by CASA is that most marijuana users - 83 percent - never use cocaine. Indeed, for nearly 70 million Americans who have tried marijuana, it is clearly a "terminus" rather than a "gateway" drug.

-------------

Despite easy availability, marijuana prevalence among 12 to 18 year olds in Holland is only 13.6 percent - well below the 38 percent use-rate for American high school seniors. More Dutch teenagers use marijuana now than in the past; indeed, lifetime prevalence increased nearly three-fold between 1984 and 1992, from 4.8 to 13.6 percent. However, Dutch officials consider their policy a success because the increase in marijuana use has not been accompanied by an increase in the use of other drugs. For the last decade, the rate of cocaine use among Dutch youth has remained stable, with about .3 percent of 12-18 year olds reporting to having used it in the past month.


Wow. You could loo at it and say "OH EM GEE. The marijuana use rate almost tripled when it became legal." Or you could say that American teens are already indulging in marijuana with a whoping 38%. Because, in America, basically any teenager interested in obtaining marijuana finds very little difficulty. It's easy to obtain as it is. Marijuana use might increase a little, depending on how expensive it would be, and how many teenagers want to have legit dealers. But as it is, there is high demand that being fed already. I highly doubt that if America legalizes marijuana, our drug rate will triple to over 100% usage ;P

Besides, if it were legalized, why would adults scram quickly for high demand of it? Obviously a drug isn't going to be legalized for teenagers or little kids. Tobacco isn't. Alcohol certainly isn't. Why would marijuana?

Someone, make note to find the adult rate of marijuana used. (Probably most used for college students, but they count).

Urgh. Saying that doing this drug is utterly stupid and I'm going to impose my "clean" views on everyone really jerks me. Especially because, the way I see it, anti-cannabis debators are trying to rationalize away something that may be overall beneficial to the American economy, teenager's health, and lowering American crime rates. -_-;;

It's not that marijuana is cool to smoke, therefore it should be legalized!!1
It's its damaging influence on well, *points up*.

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 8:30 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2885
Location: San Antonio
Who the fuck cares if drugs are abused, if people are weak, let them fail. More jobs and opportunity for me.

_________________
We used to play for silver, Now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife, Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall,
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all, Not with all...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group