# The Marijuana Debate



## TLDR20 (Jan 20, 2014)

JBS said:


> I want to change my answer to a new generation of pot head kids now that the President of the United States of America condones smoking marijuana.



Lol, is this one a joke or serious?


----------



## JBS (Jan 21, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Lol, is this one a joke or serious?



It's the truth that just happens to be sadly humorous.   No, I don't think it is the greatest threat in the world, but it's a current event, and it's a new, huge threat that undermines parents and teachers and law enforcement- straight from the White House.

Think about how much pot was smoked when it was labeled as a "gateway drug", and a terrible thing.  All the propaganda films in schools, the TV commercials, "The More You Know" with the flying star on Saturday mornings.  Endless rounds of Officer Friendly coming to school telling kids to stay off dope.  And still there was always the kid smoking weed, and don't tell me everyone in school didn't know who that one out of control pot head was.   He's the one who didn't know when to stop and his speech was slurred and he was last on every test, and he was allowed to graduate because nobody knew what else to do with him.    I know I knew one like that at every school I went to (and there were many schools because we were military).  Other kids smoked it too, but nowhere near as much as the pot head kid- mostly because of a broad range of psychological deterrents and the illegality of it.   That's how much pot was smoked back when it was "bad".    Now that it's "ok"?

Did you ever think you would live to see the day when the President of the United States went on record saying it was less harmful than alcohol?   While serving in the Office of the Presidency?   Because he said it.  Yes, the full quote is a paragraph long, and says "I don't recommend it", etc.   But you know the part that every kid in America heard is, "hey the President says it's okay, screw my parents".


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 21, 2014)

JBS said:


> It's the truth that just happens to be sadly humorous.   No, I don't think it is the greatest threat in the world, but it's a current event, and it's a new, huge threat that undermines parents and teachers and law enforcement- straight from the White House.
> 
> Think about how much pot was smoked when it was labeled as a "gateway drug", and a terrible thing.  All the propaganda films in schools, the TV commercials, "The More You Know" with the flying star on Saturday mornings.  Endless rounds of Officer Friendly coming to school telling kids to stay off dope.  And still there was always the kid smoking weed, and don't tell me everyone in school didn't know who that one out of control pot head was.   He's the one who didn't know when to stop and his speech was slurred and he was last on every test, and he was allowed to graduate because nobody knew what else to do with him.    I know I knew one like that at every school I went to (and there were many schools because we were military).  Other kids smoked it too, but nowhere near as much as the pot head kid- mostly because of a broad range of psychological deterrents and the illegality of it.   That's how much pot was smoked back when it was "bad".    Now that it's "ok"?
> 
> Did you ever think you would live to see the day when the President of the United States went on record saying it was less harmful than alcohol?   While serving in the Office of the Presidency?   Because he said it.  Yes, the full quote is a paragraph long, and says "I don't recommend it", etc.   But you know the part that every kid in America heard is, "hey the President says it's okay, screw my parents".




I think I agree with the President on this issue. I don't think Marijuana is more dangerous, or even close to as dangerous as alcohol. And as to the pothead kids, there are also plenty of kids getting shitfaced in school. Kids were even soaking tampons in vodka a few years back, so using your logic we should ban alcohol. Marijuana doesnt have the same effects on things like inhibition, it is less likely to end up causing a long term problem, and there is almost zero risk of overdosing. So comparatively to alcohol I don't think it is as dangerous. I also think labeling a substance a threat  that over a 100 million people admit to having used in the past is a little out of touch with reality. 

Lastly, the tax money itself is worthwhile to me. Tax that shit at 25%, and then imagine the possibilities. Using the most conservative estimate possible, say 1 million people buy 60 dollars worth of weed nationally per day, which is a low estimate. That would be 15 Million dollars of new tax revenue daily or almost 5 1/2 BILLION dollars a year. Now add that to the decreased cost of enforcement, and allowing people the personal freedom to make choices that impact themselves, and I think you have a recipe for success. Now for shits and giggles lets use the actual statistics for how much tax revenue this could realistically generate. a 2009 study stated that 5.5% of Americans already use the drug, so that is roughly 16.9 Million people. Now lets say they only buy the drug weekly, and again use the 60 dollar per buy price. 
Now we are up over 13 BILLION in tax revenue.  It seems silly to arrest a 21 year old for having a little pot, when they can go to the liquor store and buy an almost unlimited supply of liquor, which has been proven to be as bad or worse than pot.


----------



## RustyShackleford (Jan 21, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Now we are up over 13 BILLION in tax revenue.  It seems silly to arrest a 21 year old for having a little pot, when they can go to the liquor store and buy an almost unlimited supply of liquor, which has been proven to be as bad or worse than pot.


 
The so called war on drugs has turned into nothing more than a revenue scheme for federal, state, and local governments.  What they fail to realize is that by exercising control over the sale of legal marijuana, they can make a hell of a lot more money.

As for gateway drugs, most everyone tries alcohol first...


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 21, 2014)

Hmmm. I don't see the overall use of pot as a threat, but I do think the long term "legal" use would have an adverse effect on the next couple of generations. I've met more than a few burnouts, many former hippie types, and trying to have an intelligent conversation with them is next to impossible.

Do I think kids who smoke pot in high school or college in a more recreational use, tend not to be as bad. Especially after they have stopped smoking for a while and become part of the workforce, started familys, etc. However the other side, the hippie type who smoked daily and views it as a passive resistance (or whatever they want to say to justify it) tend to be very lazy, lacking in logical reasoning and understanding. I've seen this with pain killers and other semi accepted drug use.

Personally, seeing how the hippie generation is now running our country, and know many "still holding on to the 60's" types, the amount of burnouts and unintelligent running around, I don't see this as a good idea at all.

I will agree that alcohol is not better, someone who drinks all the time for many years develops health issues and are normally unrational as well.


From the tax generating stand point I think it makes sense to legalize pot, however, when we are running trillions of debt and deficit, billions of revenue is hardly something to get excited about.

My $.02


----------



## 0699 (Jan 21, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Now we are up over *13 BILLION in tax revenue*.  It seems silly to arrest a 21 year old for having a little pot, when they can go to the liquor store and buy an almost unlimited supply of liquor, which has been proven to be as bad or worse than pot.


 
Where should we get the other 99% of the tax revenue needed to pay off our national debt?  $13B is a drop in the bucket.

I am not a fan of sin taxes.  Either outlaw it, or allow it, but don't tax it because you can get away with it.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 21, 2014)

0699 said:


> Where should we get the other 99% of the tax revenue needed to pay off our national debt?  $13B is a drop in the bucket.
> 
> I am not a fan of sin taxes.  Either outlaw it, or allow it, but don't tax it because you can get away with it.



Well the precedent is there for them to tax it. Like I said those were very conservative estimates, 13 Billion could very easily be double that.... And since when was adding revenue to reduce a deficit a bad thing? Because right now, like it or not people are spending money on weed.


----------



## Brill (Jan 21, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Well the precedent is there for them to tax it. Like I said those were very conservative estimates, 13 Billion could very easily be double that.... And since when was adding revenue to reduce a deficit a bad thing? Because right now, like it or not people are spending money on weed.



Come, come now. You know that if the people "give" Congress $1, they will spend $5 "for the people".


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 21, 2014)

lindy said:


> Come, come now. You know that if the people "give" Congress $1, they will spend $5 "for the people".



So we are pre-emptively giving up now?


----------



## tova (Jan 21, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> So we are pre-emptively giving up now?


Never.


----------



## goon175 (Jan 21, 2014)

Tax revenue from MJ legalization primarily goes to the states that legalize it. To a state… a billion is a very big deal - especially if the state is in financial trouble (which most of them are)


----------



## Brill (Jan 21, 2014)

goon175 said:


> Tax revenue from MJ legalization primarily goes to the states that legalize it. To a state… a billion is a very big deal - especially if the state is in financial trouble (which most of them are)



Once the Feds see the booty, they'll be all over it too so "the big corporations pay their fair share."  We'll see price control too via same games as in crude oil.



TLDR20 said:


> So we are pre-emptively giving up now?



Not at all: I "give up" every 15 April.


----------



## JBS (Jan 21, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> I think I agree with the President on this issue. I don't think Marijuana is more dangerous, or even close to as dangerous as alcohol. And as to the pothead kids, there are also plenty of kids getting shitfaced in school. Kids were even soaking tampons in vodka a few years back, so using your logic we should ban alcohol. Marijuana doesnt have the same effects on things like inhibition, it is less likely to end up causing a long term problem, and there is almost zero risk of overdosing. So comparatively to alcohol I don't think it is as dangerous. I also think labeling a substance a threat  that over a 100 million people admit to having used in the past is a little out of touch with reality.



Weed is a comparitively NEW drug.   Alcohol has been in human beverages since at least 7,000 BC by some estimates.  From what I understand, marijuana smoking was a very rare thing until the 1960's in America.  Before that, it was extremely limited in use, not cultivated in large numbers, and almost always connected in some way to either: (a.) the underground music scene around the turn of the century through about the 1920's, or, prior to that (b.) Native American consumption which is extremely difficult to gauge how much that consumption was, but it's likely it was isolated since there's no record of its mass production in the strata or written record.

What I do know is weed is famous for
(a.) killing brain cells
(b.) erasing random memories for anyone who smokes it occasionally (possibly due to dead brain cells)
(c.) creating kids who lack motivation, desire, or intensity when it comes to ambition / aspiration
(d.) long term increased risk of reduced reaction time, and some studies have suggested long term reduction in ability to stay focused

As for your comparison with alcohol, this is using flawed arguments.   One cannot compare alcohol ABUSE problems to marijuana USE.  One must compare alcohol use (such as that percieved by the general population as "moderate") with people who use similarly "moderate" quantities of marijuana.   This is where the discussion gets difficult, though, since "moderate" is pretty subjective, depending on who you ask.     But to compare a homeless degenerate wino in the gutter who's blown out his liver, and has diabetes and no teeth to someone who "tokes here and there", that's not a fair argument.    Let's compare the 1 to 3 billion people who drink occasionally, or have a glass of wine with dinner- as has been done since at LEAST 2500 BC by society after society, and compare those MODERATE drinkers to "moderate" marijuana users (for which we admittedly have a much tinier population sampling from which to try and compile statistics.)

For me, it's an impossible task to try and draw any quality analytics out of this fringy kind of discussion.   I think we both agree that all kinds of substances that play with brain chemistry can be damaging.  But where I would NEVER agree is saying that marijuana is "safer" because, hey so many people I know smoked it, and they're fine.    I have to say, I know thousands of people (probably) who have TRIED it, but I know perhaps a dozen or less who actually _routinely _smoked it for any substantial period of time, (as in FREQUENTLY) and every one of them seems slower, as if it's harder for them to keep up with a conversation.  Slightly slower expressing thoughts and ideas.      To me, that's bad shit.   My theory is weed is a CCCP injection into our society at right around the same time (early Cold War), but that's just a theory for another thread.


EDITED TO ADD:

So, yeah, I'll stay quiet on this issue in my day to day life, and let those other parents be "cool" and let their kids smoke weed because the President says it's safe.   And I'm going to stick to my old school ways and teach my kids it will diminish their capacity in the long run, and I'll wager that they'll do better for it in the world they're inheriting.   I'm betting that the other kids smoking weed are going to end up manning the crappiest jobs, doing poorly in most life endeavors- and for a very specific reason.   Once the thought is in their mind that it is "safe", they're not going to have any particular reason to practice restraint of any kind.   And THAT's going to cost them.


----------



## JBS (Jan 21, 2014)

goon175 said:


> Tax revenue from MJ legalization primarily goes to the states that legalize it. To a state… a billion is a very big deal - especially if the state is in financial trouble (which most of them are)


Well, you refer to it as though it's a zero sum proposition.

How about lost productivity due to the behavioral changes associated with the popularized consumption of marijuana?  Short term ($) gain, but long term societal losses.


----------



## DasBoot (Jan 22, 2014)

JBS said:


> Weed is a comparitively NEW drug.   Alcohol has been in human beverages since at least 7,000 BC by some estimates.  From what I understand, marijuana smoking was a very rare thing until the 1960's in America.  Before that, it was extremely limited in use, not cultivated in large numbers, and almost always connected in some way to either: (a.) the underground music scene around the turn of the century through about the 1920's, or, prior to that (b.) Native American consumption which is extremely difficult to gauge how much that consumption was, but it's likely it was isolated since there's no record of its mass production in the strata or written record.
> 
> What I do know is weed is famous for
> (a.) killing brain cells
> ...


Cannabis has been used for thousands of years . You can find evidence of its use dating back to china circa 3000 BCE.  As to your list of things you "know" pot does- every single one of them can be applied to alcohol. I won't even get into your theory regarding the Commies trying to destroy American society with the sticky icky. Regarding the "abuse" vs "moderate use" argument you bring up- you yourself are using the long term effects of a heavy smoker when comparing the dangers presented by cannabis and alcohol use. We can all agree too much of anything is bad, I don't think the President is encouraging anyone to become a stoner. The basic fact that no one has ever new recorded as having overdosed on marijuana, while you can easily find dozens of people in a months time who have drank themselves to death, should be accounted for. In that sense, yes pot is less dangerous. And pot users being a smaller population? The UN estimates that 100+ million people use pot every day across the world. Between the US and EU, there have been countless studies on Pot use. And if you do a quick scan you'll find most of those either state pot is safer or they are about equal when all effects are considered. 

Regarding the use among teens- where is the uproar regarding teen drinking? Or the president having a beer- isn't that encouraging kids to become alcoholics? If anything legalizing cannabis will demystify it's use and remove much of the attraction for the renegade 10th grader. Couple that with the fact that obtaining marijuana is ridiculously easy for the majority of American teens, and the kids who don't smoke now most likely won't jump off the wagon as soon as you can buy it for personal use.

One thing I'm surprised by is that you seem to usually be calling for less intrusion into the lives of citizens, and yet in this case, you seem be be taking the stance that the private lives of millions of decent cannabis users should be subjected to the social standards and expectations of others. How do you rectify your libertarianism with your obvious opposition to legalization?


----------



## JBS (Jan 22, 2014)

DasBoot said:


> One thing I'm surprised by is that you seem to usually be calling for less intrusion into the lives of citizens, and yet in this case, you seem be be taking the stance that the private lives of millions of decent cannabis users should be subjected to the social standards and expectations of others. How do you rectify your libertarianism with your obvious opposition to legalization?



Show me LEGIT medical studies from unbiased sources that show it's safe.  Everything I've ever seen that was from legit sources, it makes people lose their edge, lose memory, become slower, even in what some consider "moderate" qty.

You're right about me being closer to Libertarian than anything else, but I think you misunderstand where I draw a hard edge.   I personally have NO problem with adults choosing to smoke weed just purely on the principle that people should be free to consume whatever they want- harmful or not.    That's why even though I personally would never drink 128 ounces of Pepsi, I absolutely hate Bloomberg for trying to ban large beverages.

Where I draw the hard edge is when the President of the United States while sitting in that most esteemed of positions decides to announce to the world that pot is less dangerous than alcohol.   We get on here and discuss it like adults.   We can do that.  We can make decisions that we feel are best for ourselves because we have real world experience- like in my case where everyone I know who smoked heavy pot became a "dope".    Your life experiences obviously have not left you feeling that way.   I listen to Joe Rogan- a funny, witty comic and personality, and all he does is go on and on about how harmless weed is.   We all have come to our conclusions as adults.

Kids, though, are a different story.  When the President says it's okay, I'm certain kids are going to hear that little snippet saying it's basically harmless as a glass of wine with dinner (that's what my kids see at home), and they're going to light up.


----------



## JBS (Jan 22, 2014)

Just the fact that there are SO many young people going on and on about how fine it is tells me the war for the hearts and mind about the drug has been lost.

For me, there's no doubt it's a harmful substance that in terms of millions of doses per day is on average making our people slower, slightly less sharp, less capable, slightly less competetive and less ambitious.   On  the basis of whatever that quantifiable effect over millions of doses per day in the general population, on that basis alone, it should be banned.

To put it another way, let's just for the sake of argument say that regular marijuana use (a couple of joints every weekend) over the course of 3 years makes a person 0.05% slower;  I don't know how to more precisely articulate this, so we'll just go with that number.   Maybe it's not anywhere close to that number.  Maybe it doesn't affect reaction time at all, but instead it kills a few brain cells in pockets resulting in the occasional memory loss/failure.   The result is that at random interval, some people fail mid-sentence, or mid-thought, or can't recall something they'd learned and otherwise would not have forgotten.   Whatever the case, strictly for the sake of argument, let's say it's 0.05%.


Now imagine that instead of people willingly ingesting it, say you caught a van full of (insert ideology / organization / agency here) carrying canisters of an unknown substance that were releasing it covertly into the waters of a given population specifically for the purpose of retarding the people there with the same measurable kinds of results:  reduced performance in X metric by 0.05%.     Kids, pregnant women, children, etc., all ingesting this substance without their knowledge, but we knew it made them more docile, more friendly, generally develop an anti-war attitude, less combative, and then after weeks of ingestion, they begin to develop a loss of ambition and motivation.   They miss school and compromise their decision making.  They drop majors involving math and science in favor of "artsy" pursuits, or dropping out of school altogether.     If it were XYZ organization / ideology doing it on an unsuspecting population it would be obviously wrong- a terrorist attack.

The dope smoker stereotype is there for a reason.   I guess I just never bought the whole Joe Rogan / every comedian on HBO / every musician who thinks he's a genius / hollywood counterculture bit that has preached weed as harmless fun.   I bought the "weed kills brain cells" preaching instead, and I can't say I've come across unbiased studies saying it doesn't kill brain cells.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 22, 2014)

My cousin's a pot smoking astrophysicist and is probably one of the most brilliant people I have ever met.

Honestly, the dope smoker derptard would be a fucking idiot with any other drug, and would be an idiot without drugs.


----------



## 0699 (Jan 22, 2014)

JBS said:


> For me, it's an impossible task to try and draw any quality analytics out of this fringy kind of discussion.   I think we both agree that all kinds of substances that play with brain chemistry can be damaging.  But where I would NEVER agree is saying that marijuana is "safer" because, *hey so many people I know smoked it, and they're fine*.    I have to say, I know thousands of people (probably) who have TRIED it, but I know perhaps a dozen or less who actually _routinely _smoked it for any substantial period of time, (as in FREQUENTLY) and every one of them seems slower, as if it's harder for them to keep up with a conversation.  Slightly slower expressing thoughts and ideas.      To me, that's bad shit.   My theory is weed is a CCCP injection into our society at right around the same time (early Cold War), but that's just a theory for another thread.


 
_"I been snorting cocaine 20 years, and I ain't hooked..."_

Richard Pryor


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 22, 2014)

I haven't really been paying too much on this but for the President to say marijuana is "relatively" safe or whatever his exact wording was is irresponsible.  I base that statement on the the method of ingestion.  I don't use MJ but I am assuming most people smoke it.  I wonder what the ramifications from a pulmonary stand point on an individual will be down the road?  Look at the way we poke fun at old cigarette ads these days.  50 years ago smoking cigarettes was "harmless".  I wonder if marijuana smokers will have the same penalty that tobacco smokers are getting under Obamacare?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2720277/


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 22, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> I haven't really been paying too much on this but for the President to say marijuana is "relatively" safe or whatever his exact wording was is irresponsible.  I base that statement on the the method of ingestion.  I don't use MJ but I am assuming most people smoke it.  I wonder what the ramifications from a pulmonary stand point on an individual will be down the road?  Look at the way we poke fun at old cigarette ads these days.  50 years ago smoking cigarettes was "harmless".  I wonder if marijuana smokers will have the same penalty that tobacco smokers are getting under Obamacare?
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2720277/



Here is a newer one http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2012/01/11282/marijuana-shown-be-less-damaging-lungs-tobacco


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 22, 2014)

Also seeing as how federally and in all states but two Marijuana use is still illegal, I doubt there will be any specific rules in the ACA regarding its use. Cigarettes however are still legal in all 50 states.


----------



## Brill (Jan 22, 2014)

Ranger Psych said:


> My cousin's a pot smoking astrophysicist and is probably one of the most brilliant people I have ever met.
> 
> Honestly, the dope smoker derptard would be a fucking idiot with any other drug, and would be an idiot without drugs.



I can just imagine his technical explanation of "Dude, where's my car?"


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 22, 2014)

JBS said:


> Weed is a comparitively NEW drug.  Alcohol has been in human beverages since at least 7,000 BC by some estimates.  From what I understand, marijuana smoking was a very rare thing until the 1960's in America.  Before that, it was extremely limited in use, not cultivated in large numbers, and almost always connected in some way to either: (a.) the underground music scene around the turn of the century through about the 1920's, or, prior to that (b.) Native American consumption which is extremely difficult to gauge how much that consumption was, but it's likely it was isolated since there's no record of its mass production in the strata or written record.





Just to clarify some of the facts here: “Marijuana has been used as an agent for achieving euphoria since ancient times; it was described in a Chinese medical compendium traditionally considered to date from 2737 B.C. It also has a long history of use as a medicinal herb. Its use spread from China to India and then to N Africa and reached Europe at least as early as A.D. 500. A major crop in colonial North America, marijuana (hemp) was grown as a source of fiber. It was extensively cultivated during World War II, when Asian sources of hemp were cut off.

Marijuana was listed in the _United States Pharmacopeia_ from 1850 until 1942 and was prescribed for various conditions including labor pains, nausea, and rheumatism. Its use as an intoxicant was also commonplace from the 1850s to the 1930s. A campaign conducted in the 1930s by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Narcotics (now the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs) sought to portray marijuana as a powerful, addicting substance that would lead users into narcotics addiction. It is still considered a "gateway" drug by some authorities. In the 1950s it was an accessory of the beat generation; in the 1960s it was used by college students and "hippies" and became a symbol of rebellion against authority.”

So basically everything you stated above was not factual.


Read more: marijuana: History of Marijuana Use | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/science/marijuana-history-marijuana-use.html#ixzz2r9O3anqF





JBS said:


> What I do know is weed is famous for
> 
> (a.) killing brain cells
> 
> ...




Okay let me break this down point by point,

A)  Killing Brain cells: Science says this about the destruction of brain cells by THC: “However, according to Morgan and Zimmer, in order to achieve these damaging results, doses of up to 200 times the psychoactive dose in humans would have to be given. Even studies in which subjects were given 100 times the human dose failed to cause any structural impairment of the brain. Additionally, in a more recent study of rhesus monkeys by Slikker et. al (1992), in which the monkeys were exposed to the equivalent of 4-5 joints per day through face-mask inhalation for an entire year, seven months later there was no observed change in hippocampal structure, cell size, cell number, or synaptic configuration. As a result of these studies, Morgan and Zimmer concluded that the claim that marijuana causes physiological damage to brain cells is incorrect.” Source: http://healthpsych.psy.vanderbilt.edu/2009/MarijuanaBrain.htm

B)  Well now that we know that there are not dead brain cells what about the random memory loss? Well science also disagrees with you there, using the same link, farther down you can read the results of the study.

C)  How are we “creating kids who lack motivation, desire, or intensity when it comes to ambition / aspiration” when the legal age to smoke marijuana is 21? If you mean that kids who break the law lack motivatioin desire and intensity, than yes, I would agree that criminals tend to lack those things.

D)  I don’t know what study that is that you are referring to, but everything I have found showed no causative relation from long term use to slower reaction time. Further, if not currently intoxicated with THC reaction times are no different in an occasional user, and someone who has not used before.






JBS said:


> For me, it's an impossible task to try and draw any quality analytics out of this fringy kind of discussion.  I think we both agree that all kinds of substances that play with brain chemistry can be damaging.  But where I would NEVER agree is saying that marijuana is "safer" because, hey so many people I know smoked it, and they're fine.    I have to say, I know thousands of people (probably) who have TRIED it, but I know perhaps a dozen or less who actually _routinely _smoked it for any substantial period of time, (as in FREQUENTLY) and every one of them seems slower, as if it's harder for them to keep up with a conversation.  Slightly slower expressing thoughts and ideas.      To me, that's bad shit.  My theory is weed is a CCCP injection into our society at right around the same time (early Cold War), but that's just a theory for another thread.



Well I think using examples from personal experience have no basis in a conversation about the chemical and physiological effects of a drug on the body. I think by safer than alcohol, many people here are pointing out that as far as addiction goes, people have a higher tendency to become addicted to it than to THC, which is factual. Further, if the people you know are smoking regularly and frequently and they are showing bad effects, I must ask, do people who have 4-5 drinks a night also exhibit such symptoms? The answer is yes. So again, someone who is abusing a substance is more heavily affected than someone who responsibly uses a substance.


----------



## goon175 (Jan 22, 2014)

TLDR20 hit most of the points I was going to address above, but I still have a few comments…

First and foremost, I have never partook in the consumption of cannabis. I do, however, strongly support legalization of recreational use as well as application as a medical treatment.

I support recreational use not because I plan to use it myself (alcohol is my current vice of choice), but because we spend way too much money in enforcement and we loose way too much money in potential tax revenue. I think it would reduce border violence, and also allow the Fed's to focus on the much more damaging and dangerous (as well as home-made) Meth problem - as well as the other hard drugs.

There are some negative side effects from smoking/inhalation, but as TLDR20 has shown, not as much as tobacco. Fortunately, if you are concerned with that, there are multiple other vehicles of delivery that are much safer.

Medicinal application is a no-brainer. Not only have there been multiple studies done, there are thousands of testimonials on the effects of medical application for a variety of ailments. Many of the medical applications come in the form of trans-dermal patches, topical creams, and edibles. Maybe you can debate recreational use in comparison to tobacco or alcohol (I don't think there is a comparison personally though) but you absolutely cannot say that the current drugs being prescribed are safer than medicinal marijuana. Absolutely no comparison.

Give it 5-10 years and we will see federal legalization.

Give it 20, and insurance companies will be covering it for prescriptions from Walgreens and Rite-Aid.

Just because we have been told its "bad" all of our lives, doesn't mean we can't do our own independent research and make our own decision on whether what we have been told is true or not. I'm putting "marijuana is bad" in the same category as the government telling us "grains is the bottom of the food period" - science agrees with neither...


----------



## RustyShackleford (Jan 22, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Just to clarify some of the facts here: “Marijuana has been used as an agent for achieving euphoria since ancient times; it was described in a Chinese medical compendium traditionally considered to date from 2737 B.C. It also has a long history of use as a medicinal herb. Its use spread from China to India and then to N Africa and reached Europe at least as early as A.D. 500. A major crop in colonial North America, marijuana (hemp) was grown as a source of fiber. It was extensively cultivated during World War II, when Asian sources of hemp were cut off.
> 
> Marijuana was listed in the _United States Pharmacopeia_ from 1850 until 1942 and was prescribed for various conditions including labor pains, nausea, and rheumatism. Its use as an intoxicant was also commonplace from the 1850s to the 1930s. A campaign conducted in the 1930s by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Narcotics (now the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs) sought to portray marijuana as a powerful, addicting substance that would lead users into narcotics addiction. It is still considered a "gateway" drug by some authorities. In the 1950s it was an accessory of the beat generation; in the 1960s it was used by college students and "hippies" and became a symbol of rebellion against authority.”
> 
> So basically everything you stated above was not factual.


 
And all this time I thought weed was cast upon us by the red menace as an attempt to destroy America!


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 22, 2014)

I just think it is kind of funny that Obama doesn't seem too concerned in the New Yorker article but his own Office of National Drug Control Policy states:


> Confusing messages being presented by popular culture, media, proponents of “medical” marijuana, and political campaigns to legalize all marijuana use perpetuate the false notion that marijuana is harmless. This significantly diminishes efforts to keep our young people drug free and hampers the struggle of those recovering from addiction.
> The Administration steadfastly opposes legalization of marijuana and other drugs because legalization would increase the availability and use of illicit drugs, and pose significant health and safety risks to all Americans, particularly young people.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/marijuana


----------



## DasBoot (Jan 22, 2014)

goon175 said:


> TLDR20 hit most of the points I was going to address above, but I still have a few comments…
> 
> First and foremost, I have never partook in the consumption of cannabis. I do, however, strongly support legalization of recreational use as well as application as a medical treatment.
> 
> ...


The bold is something that should be brought up more often. What percentage of police resources have been wasted on taking in small time offenders and dealing with processing those who have been arrested for non-violent, pot related crimes? This isn't a criticism of any police officers or departments- but the laws that force LEO's to focus on this stuff, over more serious crimes.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 22, 2014)

Goon175 makes a very vaild point regarding THC in medical use. If you were being prescribed a "THC" pill vs a standard opiate pill, I would imagine the THC would be far easier to use, come off of and would be less of a gateway to heavier street drugs. 

Most people in my area are pill heads, pot smokers and there seems to be quite a bit of meth.

I remember seeing a deal on the science Chanel a few years ago regarding Israel was studying THC in a measured pill form for use as a pain killer.

As for the pot head not having long term lasting effects from long term use. I disagree, I've met more than a few pot heads who have stated that pot fucked them up, normally followed with an "oh well I like getting high". Science is awesome and when that science is fully discovered it will put much of the questioning to rest, from both sides of the debate. But I hardly think anyone has studied THC on the same level as tobacco, alcohol, or other more aggressive drugs.

That said, weed will be legal and although I agree with it being legalized for adult use, I don't believe our citizens will be better off from it. Less in prison for its transport and sale, but yet I imagine criminals will be criminals regardless what illegal acts they are doing.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 22, 2014)

JAB said:


> As for the pot head not having long term lasting effects from long term use. I disagree, I've met more than a few pot heads who have stated that pot fucked them up,
> 
> That said, weed will be legal and although I agree with it being legalized for adult use, I don't believe our citizens will be better off from it. Less in prison for its transport and sale, but yet I imagine criminals will be criminals regardless what illegal acts they are doing.


 I am sure gang members will continue to sell drugs like heroine, crack and cocaine, but people also won't end up with a felony charge for taking weed to Bonnaroo(The music festival for those of you who don't know)


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 22, 2014)

This gives a whole new spin on "smokin' your balls off"   

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22965656


----------



## dirtmover (Jan 23, 2014)

My issue with legalizing marijuana is we know the cartels are shipping in to the US well now all they have to do is get it to a state that it is legalized in and bam know they have clean funds.  Then all they have to do is send back less than 10,000 dollars and they are good to go.  Also with the "importing" of marijuana we don't know everything that is in it so there may be more than just THC in it.


----------



## reed11b (Jan 23, 2014)

dirtmover said:


> My issue with legalizing marijuana is we know the cartels are shipping in to the US well now all they have to do is get it to a state that it is legalized in and bam know they have clean funds.  Then all they have to do is send back less than 10,000 dollars and they are good to go.  Also with the "importing" of marijuana we don't know everything that is in it so there may be more than just THC in it.


 If it's legalized, the state can grow there own. Reducing profit for the cartels. Win/Win.
Reed


----------



## dirtmover (Jan 23, 2014)

I am not sure on all the ins and outs of how the store procure their product.  My question is how is the state government going to guarantee the product is grown here in the states under strict guidelines.  Also if it is cheaper to buy cartel drugs then that is what a lot of the businesses will do.  Also the states needs to provide regulatory guidance to protect the consumer.  The FDA(not saying that they can't be bought off) can't and won't touch regulating the marijuana due to the fact that it is still legal. 

What I am getting at is right now there is no way to guarantee that there isn't cartel drugs in the mix.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jan 23, 2014)

My youngest BIL had a medical marijuana card when he was still living in California.  From what he told me, the dispensaries there mainly grew their own.  The thirst for knowledge regarding the growing of one's own strains of pot was so great that there was a place in Oakland that called itself Oaksterdam.  It basically was a horticultural community college that focused itself on all there was to know about growing pot.  It was raided a year or two ago, and shut down by the feds; I don't know if it was ever resurrected or not.  

I would think that the people who run the dispensaries want as little to do with the cartels as possible, in much the same reason people in New York would not want to enter into business with anyone who was even remotely associated with the Italian, Irish, or Russian mafias.  Perhaps it may turn out differently if it were legalized across the nation from the federal level on down and corporations chose to get involved, but that corporatism runs counter to the bulk of the people who are interested in the growth, manufacture, processing, and sales of marijuana, edibles, and other associated products.


----------



## AWP (Jan 23, 2014)

Organized crime is involved in whatever it wants. Sure, you think of drugs or casinos, but the reality is that if they want a cut of something profitable they will find a way. Anyone ever refused to stay at a hotel because of a housekeeper's union or refuse to use goods transported by a Teamster's member?

I'm not defending OC, but the reality is that it is everywhere.


----------



## goon175 (Jan 23, 2014)

dirtmover said:


> I am not sure on all the ins and outs of how the store procure their product.  My question is how is the state government going to guarantee the product is grown here in the states under strict guidelines.  Also if it is cheaper to buy cartel drugs then that is what a lot of the businesses will do.  Also the states needs to provide regulatory guidance to protect the consumer.  The FDA(not saying that they can't be bought off) can't and won't touch regulating the marijuana due to the fact that it is still legal.
> 
> What I am getting at is right now there is no way to guarantee that there isn't cartel drugs in the mix.



The states that have legalized it very strictly regulate it. Also, the dispensaries grow their own.


----------



## 0699 (Jan 23, 2014)

goon175 said:


> *The states that have legalized it very strictly regulate it*. Also, the dispensaries grow their own.


 
Like all the other regulations at the federal, state, and local level about drugs, alcohol, guns, building permits, etc, etc, etc?


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 23, 2014)

I was wondering about that "strictly regulate it" part.  I found this article while surfing.  Interesting. 
http://www.law360.com/articles/500322/legal-pot-leaves-product-liability-attys-dazed-confused



> The rollout of the law has been bumpy, not least because marijuana is still an illicit drug at the federal level. The Obama administration is allowing Colorado to implement the law, as long as it does not result in the distribution of marijuana outside the state or to minors. Still, dispensaries reportedly have had difficulty finding the child-resistant packaging the state mandates for the product, and controversy has swirled around banks' ability to take money generated by marijuana sales.
> 
> The road will get only bumpier when the first product liability lawsuits are filed by purchasers, particularly because many marijuana sellers are small businesses that may not have product liability insurance, according to attorneys.





> The dispensaries could be targeted by claims that the marijuana caused a lung injury or lung cancer, attorneys say. Under state regulations, sellers are required to include a warning against the use of heavy machinery while high on marijuana, as well as cautionary language about the “additional health risks” associated with use of the drug while pregnant, breastfeeding or planning to become pregnant.
> 
> The only mandatory health warning applicable to all users, however, says only that “there may be health risks associated with the consumption of this product.” A plaintiff suing a dispensary could argue that such warning language is too vague, and that the grower or seller should have warned about the risk of the specific injury at issue, according to Mickus.
> 
> “Is that kind of product labeling sufficient to cover manufacturers? A lot of product liability law would indicate no, there has to be more specific language there,” Mickus said.





> Dispensaries could face lawsuits if the products become contaminated by a harmful substance like mold, as well. Growers and sellers are not required to test the products for mold, bacteria, and pesticides and other harmful chemicals. Instead, if they don't perform the tests, they're required to affix a label that says, “This package has not been tested for contaminants.”
> 
> False advertising class actions are also a possibility, according to attorneys. The regulations prohibit growers or sellers from making “any false or misleading statements regarding health or physical benefits to the consumer,” but other types of claims could be targeted, Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP partner Jordan Lipp said.
> 
> “You could imagine a consumer saying, 'You said this contained so much THC, but it didn't contain that, so I'm forming a class action,'” Lipp said.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 23, 2014)

Whoa, check it out.  Look at Illinois.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-medical-marijuana-rules-met-20140122,0,1530419.story



> Patients who want to qualify for medical marijuana in Illinois would have to be fingerprinted for a background check and pay $150 a year — and give up their right to own a gun, state officials proposed Tuesday.


----------



## AWP (Jan 23, 2014)

You can have rights or you can have rights, but you can't have more than one.


----------



## goon175 (Jan 23, 2014)

Yup, in CO if you have a "red card", the medical marijuana license, you cannot possess firearms.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 23, 2014)

goon175 said:


> Yup, in CO if you have a "red card", the medical marijuana license, you cannot possess firearms.


Forgive my ignorance, but how is the "red card" individual different from the ...legal recreational marijuana user now that marijuana is legal?


----------



## goon175 (Jan 23, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but how is the "red card" individual different from the ...legal recreational marijuana user now that marijuana is legal?



Two different laws, two different uses. One is for recreational use and has a set of laws and regulations, one is for medical use and has a different set of laws and regulations. Recreational MJ is typically much different from medical grade.


----------



## JBS (Jan 23, 2014)

Marijuana use being legalized is insanity.

Many of the arguments in favor of it could also be made about heroin and cocaine.   Hell I could make the case that coke would increase productivity and alertness and cite 2500 years of use or even further back in ancient Egypt and go forward to high altitude workers in the fields picking the hell out of some crops while chewing leaves ttoday in South America.

Drugs that screw with brain chemistry are never going to be without a cost to the body somewhere.   I'm gonna go ahead and stick to my belief that it dulls you over time.  I'm not so intense about it that I'm going to get even mildly bent out of shape over it.   But I agree with a reverend from an inner city church who was on the news yesterday pleading with Obama to think about the consequences of what he's saying and reminding him that his legacy is going to be that of encouraging pot use amongst the most impressionable sectors of society.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 23, 2014)

JBS said:


> Marijuana use being legalized is insanity.
> 
> Many of the arguments in favor of it could also be made about heroin and cocaine.   Hell I could make the case that coke would increase productivity and alertness and cite 2500 years of use or even further back in ancient Egypt and go forward to high altitude workers in the fields picking the hell out of some crops while chewing leaves ttoday in South America.
> 
> Drugs that screw with brain chemistry are never going to be without a cost to the body somewhere.   I'm gonna go ahead and stick to my belief that it dulls you over time.  I'm not so intense about it that I'm going to get even mildly bent out of shape over it.   But I agree with a reverend from an inner city church who was on the news yesterday pleading with Obama to think about the consequences of what he's saying and reminding him that his legacy is going to be that of encouraging pot use amongst the most impressionable sectors of society.


This is a really interesting issue to me. I would say I lean toward the libertarian sort of "Sell it, regulate it, tax the living holy crap out of it, get over it" view. We allow other intoxicants (alcohol) and things that are 100% proven to cause death for users (cigarettes), but _now _America seems to have this moral obligation to protect it's citizens? Uh, ok. We did the same thing with prohibition. Never, curiously, with big tobacco, but that's due to the lessons learned from prohibition and the amount of money tabled. I digress. 

It falls in the same category with me as every other "vice", like gambling, alcohol, cigarettes, even as far as legalized drug use- if it's in the privacy of your own home or appropriately used with no negative impact to me or society, then go ahead. If it kills you or ruins your life? Well, maybe you shouldn't have done that, eh?


----------



## DasBoot (Jan 24, 2014)

JBS said:


> Marijuana use being legalized is insanity.
> 
> Many of the arguments in favor of it could also be made about heroin and cocaine.   Hell I could make the case that coke would increase productivity and alertness and cite 2500 years of use or even further back in ancient Egypt and go forward to high altitude workers in the fields picking the hell out of some crops while chewing leaves ttoday in South America.
> 
> Drugs that screw with brain chemistry are never going to be without a cost to the body somewhere.   I'm gonna go ahead and stick to my belief that it dulls you over time.  I'm not so intense about it that I'm going to get even mildly bent out of shape over it.   But I agree with a reverend from an inner city church who was on the news yesterday pleading with Obama to think about the consequences of what he's saying and reminding him that his legacy is going to be that of encouraging pot use amongst the most impressionable sectors of society.


And most of your arguments could be related to alcohol, tobacco and even caffeine.
You keep making these statements where you call out pot and hard drugs, yet you seem to leave alcohol out every time. You yourself just said a few posts back that alcohol has been produced and consumed for thousands of years, and cited that as a reason for it being legal. And I've seen several posts on here (thanks to @TLDR20) citing peer reviewed studies that dispute your points (that pot legalization is "crazy" because of things like reduced motor skills and laziness) but you keep reiterating the same anecdotes about stoners and Slackers and hippies and even Commies. I don't see any valid arguments from the anti-legalization side, backed by science, that really lend any credence to the idea that the bad outweighs the good in this situation.


----------



## goon175 (Jan 24, 2014)

JBS said:


> Marijuana use being legalized is insanity.
> 
> Many of the arguments in favor of it could also be made about heroin and cocaine. *No they could not. Heroine and Coke have very quantifiable and easily identifiable negative impacts on the body. It is nearly impossible to die from cannabis over dose, where as coke and heroin users routinely overdose and die.*  Hell I could make the case that coke would increase productivity and alertness and cite 2500 years of use or even further back in ancient Egypt and go forward to high altitude workers in the fields picking the hell out of some crops while chewing leaves ttoday in South America.
> 
> Drugs that screw with brain chemistry are never going to be without a cost to the body somewhere. *There are two types of canabis, Sativa and Indica. Sativa effects cerebral function (the brain), and Indica has no cerebral effect - it mainly works on the body. So, given you are concerned with the effect of Canabis on the brain, would you then support legalization of Indica since it has no effect on the brain?*   I'm gonna go ahead and stick to my belief that it dulls you over time.  I'm not so intense about it that I'm going to get even mildly bent out of shape over it.   But I agree with a reverend from an inner city church who was on the news yesterday pleading with Obama to think about the consequences of what he's saying and reminding him that his legacy is going to be that of encouraging pot use amongst the most impressionable sectors of society.


----------



## pardus (Jan 24, 2014)

DasBoot said:


> And most of your arguments could be related to alcohol, tobacco and even caffeine.
> You keep making these statements where you call out pot and hard drugs, yet you seem to leave alcohol out every time. *You yourself just said a few posts back that alcohol has been produced and consumed for thousands of years, and cited that as a reason for it being legal. *And I've seen several posts on here (thanks to @TLDR20) citing peer reviewed studies that dispute your points (that pot legalization is "crazy" because of things like reduced motor skills and laziness) but you keep reiterating the same anecdotes about stoners and Slackers and hippies and even Commies. I don't see any valid arguments from the anti-legalization side, backed by science, that really lend any credence to the idea that the bad outweighs the good in this situation.



I believe Cannabis has been smoked for at least the last 10,000yrs (in Africa by the Bushmen).  So the alcohol argument would be a double edged sword...


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 24, 2014)

goon175 said:


> Two different laws, two different uses. One is for recreational use and has a set of laws and regulations, one is for medical use and has a different set of laws and regulations. Recreational MJ is typically much different from medical grade.


Again, forgive my lack of knowledge on this.  How exactly is medical marijuana different from recreational marijuana?  The only thing I can seem to find is that the difference between medical vs recreational is how it is taxed?  Is there some sort of guidline such as with spirits "alcohol by volume" and proof? 
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/po...ana-and-recreational-marijuana-co-exist/7324/



> The board basically wants medical marijuana patients to get their pot the way recreational users get theirs. The biggest distinction between the two types of consumers (though it will probably not be the only one) is that medical marijuana patients would be allowed to use tax exemptions to make up for the fact that recreational pot will be taxed, and thus far more expensive than medical pot, which isn't.



http://www.denverdispensaries.net/t...dical-and-recreational-marijuana-in-colorado/



> What is the difference between medical and recreational marijuana though? The main difference is the amount of tax that is charged with each sale. For recreational sales of marijuana around the Denver area, an additional 20-25% sales tax is added to the foot of the bill. The exact tax rate will vary between counties so for exact tax rates, give a call to your local rec dispensary. Medical patients will receive a lower tax rate around 10% due to their legitimate need for medicine. Medical patients will also have a larger variety of products to choose from. This includes edibles, tinctures and other products infused with marijuana such as various concentrates.



Also, how much does it cost to buy recreational marijuana in these legal shops vs. what you could buy on the street?


----------



## JBS (Jan 24, 2014)

RustyShackleford said:


> And all this time I thought weed was cast upon us by the red menace as an attempt to destroy America!


It always amazes me when people think that because today some plot seems outlandish, stupid, and unthinkable that people in the 50's and 60's would never have considered executing such things.    If we want to see a government secretly administering drugs to unsuspecting populations, _we don't even need to look at Russia.   _

In 1953, Project MK Ultra was sanctioned by the US Government.   Project MK Ultra was the code name for a U.S. government human research operation experimenting in the behavioral engineering of humans through the CIA's Scientific Intelligence Division. The CIA project was coordinated with the Special Operations Division of the Army's Chemical Corps.[1] MKUltra used numerous methodologies to manipulate people's mental states and alter brain functions, including the surreptitious administration of drugs (especially LSD) and other chemicals, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, verbal and sexual abuse, as well as various forms of torture.[9] The scope of Project MKUltra was broad, with research undertaken at 80 institutions, including 44 colleges and universities, as well as hospitals, prisons and pharmaceutical companies.[10]
So, yeah, there's precedent for covert administration of drugs by a sitting modern government into the general population and for an extended period of time.   Kind of brings that "unthinkable absurdity" down a notch or two.   And just for clarity, I never_* even remotely*_ suggested marijuana was created, grown, or in any other way had it's origin in the USSR.  In my earlier posts I obviously nod my head at the fact that small quantities of marijuana have been grown, cultivated, and consumed by humans for thousands of years, but in relatively tiny quantities.  What I *did* allude to was the possibility that USSR interests could have- and likely did- promote its use by Americans during the Cold War.  The intent would have been to diminish aggression among the population and erode support for conflict, and as a consequence indirectly reduce the ability of the (elected) US Government to project military power.  *Marijuana at the time *was seen to reduce aggression and have long lasting calming psychological effects.  The USSR always completely understood that influencing the opinions and impulses of populations of democratic nations could ultimately steer policy and even put hard limits on the reach of officials.   It's therefore quite easy to imagine a plan to promote widespread cannabis use in the American population, in a long-term attempt to undermine grass roots support for war.  Easy to implement- check, low risk-check, potentially enormous yield/return- check, deniability-check.  As a side note, today many Americans still have a mental image of marijuana users from the 60's all about two things: smoking more dope, and abstaining from war.



DasBoot said:


> And most of your arguments could be related to alcohol, tobacco and even caffeine.
> 
> You keep making these statements where you call out pot and hard drugs, yet you seem to leave alcohol out every time. You yourself just said a few posts back that alcohol has been produced and consumed for thousands of years, and cited that as a reason for it being legal.


  That's only partially accurate.  I'm referring to its safe consumption by billions of people for 10's of thousands of years.   The breadth and scope of alcohol consumption by probably the vast majority of everyone who ever lived is itself a testament to how safe (in the statistical sense) it is.   For some populations - sub populations living in certain geographic areas, for example (Egyptians, Romans) alcoholic beverages were consumed as an almost exclusive source of water intake- especially in areas where no potable water could be had.   It was carried to school by Egyptian children in a drink that closely resembles beer for more than 1,000 years.  It was taken by Roman military on expeditions to arid climates, and many other historical examples.   There's no doubt that alcohol has always been abused, since we read accounts of festivals in the Temple of Bacchus where people would drink, and vomit, and then drink again for literally days on end- festivals that went on for a week at a time, consisting almost exclusively of drinking as much as the participants could stand.  Unlike the modern equivalent (more modern partying), however, such behavior was more likely to be indulged by only the richest citizens, since drinking and feasting to such excess was not normally within the grasp of most citizens of the day.   Let's not forget our standards of living for the common man has radically changed in the last few centuries.

The point is the consumption of marijuana compared to the mass consumption of alcohol throughout human history- the scale of the two are beyond comparison.   If we assign a value to total use of alcohol, that value would be  X*1,000,000,000,000,000 where the consumption of marijuana throughout human history would likely be X*0.0000001.




> And I've seen several posts on here (thanks to @TLDR20) citing peer reviewed studies that dispute your points (that pot legalization is "crazy" because of things like reduced motor skills and laziness) but you keep reiterating the same anecdotes about stoners and Slackers and hippies and even Commies. I don't see any valid arguments from the anti-legalization side, backed by science, that really lend any credence to the idea that the bad outweighs the good in this situation.



I agree @TLDR20  's post was excellent, but it was and is certainly not without rebuttal.  This thread has made me want to research the topic more.   I've come up with numerous studies that show cannabis use in adolescents causes permanent brain damage, developmental disabilities, elevated risk of psychosis, and a host of other problems.   I'll gather and post them later when I have time.  Marijuana is not without risk.  The funny thing is that a cursory Google search yields the first 20 pages of pro-marijuana literature written by advocates of pot use in an extremely biased way, making any genuine search on the topic tougher than I thought it should be.


----------



## AWP (Jan 24, 2014)

I've moved the marijuana posts from the Greatest Threats thread so we can continue th debate without hijacking what's become a totally separate thread.


----------



## JBS (Jan 24, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Here is a newer one http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2012/01/11282/marijuana-shown-be-less-damaging-lungs-tobacco


I have a few studies that demonstrate marijuana causes major health risks, and surprisingly most of what I find is centered on damage caused to adolescents, where adults seem to sustain far less impact if they consume marijuana after they're already adults.

But this study you link to, how marijuana is less harmful to your lungs sounds like we're basically making the argument that a .22 is less lethal than a 7.62.     Part of the reason for that, isn't because of tobacco, but all the other additives in cigarette products that were not in them 30 to 40 years ago.   I have a relative who is a tobacco farmer, and I've used his tobacco in my pipes (the only smoking vice I have anymore is the occasional pipe or a cigar).   Smoking a tobacco leaf is not the same as smoking the chopped and sprayed product in a Marlboro.   The amount of additives in that stuff is monstrous, making it more lethal, more addictive, and more toxic than just drying  a tobacco leaf and shredding it yourself.     Anyway, smoke of any kind in the lungs is toxic,  but I wanted to point out that comparing the  two isn't a great argument for using and a pretty weak one for legalization.  You're basically saying they'll both kill you.

So then why is the President condoning it?


----------



## AWP (Jan 24, 2014)

JBS said:


> So then why is the President condoning it?


 
If my wife caught me trying to hook up with Denmark's PM, I'd need a little something to take the edge off my home life.


----------



## enceladus (Jan 24, 2014)

> U.S. treasury and law enforcement agencies will soon issue regulations opening banking services to state-sanctioned marijuana businesses even though cannabis remains classified an illegal narcotic under federal law, Attorney General Eric Holder said on Thursday.
> Holder said the new rules would address problems faced by newly licensed recreational pot retailers in Colorado, and medical marijuana dispensaries in other states, in operating on a cash-only basis, without access to banking services or credit.



One step closer to federal decriminalization.  Like with gay marriage, we should just accept the inevitable and rip the band-aid off.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/marijuana-bank_n_4656145.html


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 24, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Well the precedent is there for them to tax it. Like I said those were very conservative estimates, 13 Billion could very easily be double that.... And since when was adding revenue to reduce a deficit a bad thing? Because right now, like it or not people are spending money on weed.


What are the offset costs?
Will there be an increase in "buzzed" drivers, who cause more accidents increasing health care and workmans comp costs or lost productivity?
I think legalizing is coming, and we need to look at minimizing the negative impacts.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 24, 2014)

@JBS neither me nor anyone else is saying it should be legalized in adolescents, as I am sure you understand..further research shows the same data regarding increased problems from alcohol consumption, this is to be expected as the adolescent brain is not fully formed, so therefore any substance has an effect.Further stating a substance causes problems in the adolescent brain is not a good argument period for the same reason I stated before. You cannot guarantee that someone would not develop a mental disorder had MJ not been used.  Therefore MJ is not causative for mental disorders, it is only correlated, which makes this topic very murky. 

Earlier you sarcastically pointed out that we could also legalize heroine and cocaine while we are legalizing MJ but allow me to point out some easily verifiable reasons why that is not being pushed, and will never be pushed. Reason number 1, is that both of these substances begin to cause addiction in single uses. While I have no doubt that someone can become addicted to MJ(through heavy long long term use), the type of addiction(similar to tobacco) is significantly different than a chemical dependency that forms from drugs like cocaine, and heroine. Not to make light of the debate 




The NIH also states that 23 percent of people who use heroine one time develop a chemical dependency on the drug. That is almost unbelievable, that if given to 4 people, one of those people would likely develop not an addiction, but a chemical dependency. That is insanity. 

Reason number two as to the why coke and H aren't being pushed to legalize, is that both of those drugs lead to desperate people, which creates crime. Nobody is going to suck dick for weed, or pull copper wiring out of a live elctric trans station. But people on H and coke do both of those things, and I have seen the results first hand. 

Lastly to me personally, I think it is insanity that if someone wants to smoke weed and listen to their favorite band at a concert, they have to risk going to jail. Meanwhile there are people blacked out drunk walking around the same concert, and they are just fine. Who is more likely to do damage to themselves or others? The guy that took a bong rip? Or the guy that did 10 tequila shots? I think the answer is pretty straight forward.


----------



## pardus (Jan 24, 2014)

JBS said:


> That's only partially accurate.  I'm referring to its safe consumption by billions of people for 10's of thousands of years.   The breadth and scope of alcohol consumption by probably the vast majority of everyone who ever lived is itself a testament to how safe (in the statistical sense) it is.   For some populations - sub populations living in certain geographic areas, for example (Egyptians, Romans) alcoholic beverages were consumed as an almost exclusive source of water intake- especially in areas where no potable water could be had.   It was carried to school by Egyptian children in a drink that closely resembles beer for more than 1,000 years.  It was taken by Roman military on expeditions to arid climates, and many other historical examples.   There's no doubt that alcohol has always been abused, since we read accounts of festivals in the Temple of Bacchus where people would drink, and vomit, and then drink again for literally days on end- festivals that went on for a week at a time, consisting almost exclusively of drinking as much as the participants could stand.  Unlike the modern equivalent (more modern partying), however, such behavior was more likely to be indulged by only the richest citizens, since drinking and feasting to such excess was not normally within the grasp of most citizens of the day.   Let's not forget our standards of living for the common man has radically changed in the last few centuries.
> 
> The point is the consumption of marijuana compared to the mass consumption of alcohol throughout human history- the scale of the two are beyond comparison.   If we assign a value to total use of alcohol, that value would be  X*1,000,000,000,000,000 where the consumption of marijuana throughout human history would likely be X*0.0000001.





JBS said:


> I agree @TLDR20  's post was excellent, but it was and is certainly not without rebuttal.  This thread has made me want to research the topic more.  I've come up with numerous studies that show cannabis use in adolescents causes permanent brain damage, developmental disabilities, elevated risk of psychosis, and a host of other problems.  I'll gather and post them later when I have time.  Marijuana is not without risk.  The funny thing is that a cursory Google search yields the first 20 pages of pro-marijuana literature written by advocates of pot use in an extremely biased way, making any genuine search on the topic tougher than I thought it should be.




You're pulling numbers out of your ass and you're cherry picking facts to back your argument. Ancient fermented drinks had a much lower alcohol percentage generally (though there were certainly strong drinks)(actually marijuana was a lot less potent than it is today, though that may only relate to commercially grown plants), they were a safe way to store bread (beer) and grapes (wine) for much longer periods than they could be kept in their natural form. It was also generally safer than water in certain parts of the world. 

Has alcohol been more prevalent than marijuana? Yes I think so, though that is mainly a western view point. However marijuana use is and has been widespread and has been used for thousands of years in Europe, China, Africa and other places I'm sure. Queen Victoria was prescribed marijuana for menstrual cramps. 

Marijuana is not "safe", it has harmful effects, but nothing significantly different to alcohol or tobacco. 

^ this is fact. 
v this is my opinion...

Advocating a prohibition on marijuana makes about as much sense as a prohibition on alcohol. Mexican drug cartels are grateful...


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 24, 2014)

SOWT said:


> What are the offset costs?
> Will there be an increase in "buzzed" drivers, who cause more accidents increasing health care and workmans comp costs or lost productivity?
> I think legalizing is coming, and we need to look at minimizing the negative impacts.



I don't know the answer to that. I agree that minimizing negative impacts is very important. But out of curiosity, did prohibition keep people from drinking and driving? I doubt it.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 24, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> I don't know the answer to that. I agree that minimizing negative impacts is very important. But out of curiosity, did prohibition keep people from drinking and driving? I doubt it.


You do understand that drunk driving wasn't viewed as a serious offense for many years don't you?
I am not lamenting buzzed drivers, but think we need to aknowledge an increase in buzzed people causing injury to themselves and others, are their "field tests" to determine the presence of THC?


----------



## pardus (Jan 24, 2014)

SOWT said:


> You do understand that drunk driving wasn't viewed as a serious offense for many years don't you?
> I am not lamenting buzzed drivers, but think we need to aknowledge an increase in buzzed people causing injury to themselves and others, *are their "field tests" to determine the presence of THC?*



Not to my knowledge but the field sobriety test is not for alcohol alone, and if you are determined to be under the influence you can (depending on state laws) be medically tested via breath/blood/urine samples.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 24, 2014)

In Colorado they established a blood content standard, so I don't know how that is tested. Also as to how we will see an increase, the people that would be smoking pot are already doing so. I don't think people will flock to the drug if it is legalized. So I think accidents relating to MJ use will likely remain at a similar level.


----------



## pardus (Jan 24, 2014)

This reminds me of the DADT debate and people not realizing that gays were already in the Military and already using the same showers and barracks as them. 

Will marijuana use increase with it being de-criminalized/legalized? Yeah, maybe a little, but it won't be significant and it's not going to change society in a significantly bad way. 

I'm certainly not going to start using it just because it's legal, if I wanted to use it I would and could now. 

Existing laws will contain and control peoples behavior regardless of what they choose to ingest.


----------



## Centermass (Jan 24, 2014)

pardus said:


> This reminds me of the DADT debate and people not realizing that gays were already in the Military and already using the same showers and barracks as them.
> 
> Will marijuana use increase with it being de-criminalized/legalized? Yeah, maybe a little, but it won't be significant and it's not going to change society in a significantly bad way.
> 
> ...




Laws are put in place for a reason. To maintain good order and discipline of society. Right now, in a majority of the country, it is still illegal to consume, possess, sell, manufacture, distribute. 

Having a background in LE, I will tell you this. Ask any officer if they think it should be legalized and 4 out 5 will more than likely say yes.

That being said, here's there issue I have with the whole thing. It's the way this has been presented by the man at the top. He put the cart in front of the horse. We have (Or last time I checked, suppose to have) a system in place to enact laws, modify laws and remove laws.  Want it legalized? Introduce legislation and have the law changed the way it should be. Not by a Monarch who basically chooses to approve this or disapprove that, based on his or her personal preferences. 

I have no doubt it will. But if it is, it needs to be done right, starting with the legislative branch of government, so that the criminal element stays out of it, the cartels don't get their hooks into it anymore than they already have. Establish guidelines for its use, manufacture, distribution, possession and proper oversight to ensure it is and regulate it.


With that, what do you think about all this?


----------



## Centermass (Jan 24, 2014)

Thank you. I'll be in the AO all day.


----------



## reed11b (Jan 24, 2014)

SOWT said:


> What are the offset costs?
> Will there be an increase in "buzzed" drivers, who cause more accidents increasing health care and workmans comp costs or lost productivity?
> I think legalizing is coming, and we need to look at minimizing the negative impacts.


How much you want to bet, that now that ALL use is not illegal, someone will be able to test for THC intoxication? I.E. a way to bust MJ buzzed drivers.
Reed


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 24, 2014)

reed11b said:


> How much you want to bet, that now that ALL use is not illegal, someone will be able to test for THC intoxication? I.E. a way to bust MJ buzzed drivers.
> Reed



I am pretty sure they have that.


----------



## reed11b (Jan 24, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> I am pretty sure they have that.


 My google fu must be weaker than yours. Share what you've got.
Reed


----------



## pardus (Jan 24, 2014)

Centermass said:


> *SOME* Laws are put in place for a reason. To maintain good order and discipline of society. Right now, in a majority of the country, it is still illegal to consume, possess, sell, manufacture, distribute.
> 
> Having a background in LE, I will tell you this. Ask any officer if they think it should be legalized and 4 out 5 will more than likely say yes.
> 
> ...



A, I agree with your entire post with the exception of the addition I made. There are some stupid and terrible laws that are or have been in place in the past. MJ is legal with the proper tax stamp right? From the little ive read there was little good reason to have ever banned it in the first place. 

B, you clapped at your own post? DICK!


----------



## pardus (Jan 24, 2014)

reed11b said:


> My google fu must be weaker than yours. Share what you've got.
> Reed



Weak? I think it's dying... 

http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.html#blood


----------



## racing_kitty (Jan 24, 2014)

I'm on my phone, so I'll hunt the link later, but Colorado has already begun to address this issue of what level of THC constitutes DUI. According to a Colorado news source (I think it was a TV station's website outta Denver, but I can't remember), cops have a way to take an oral sample and test for THC. If the level of THC is higher than a certain point, the driver is arrested for DUI. 

The article goes into a bit more detail. Don't think for a minute the 90lb brains that manage the local Greybar Hotels haven't been mulling that over.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 24, 2014)

JBS said:


> I have a few studies that demonstrate marijuana causes major health risks, and surprisingly most of what I find is centered on damage caused to adolescents, where adults seem to sustain far less impact if they consume marijuana after they're already adults.
> 
> But this study you link to, how marijuana is less harmful to your lungs sounds like we're basically making the argument that a .22 is less lethal than a 7.62.     Part of the reason for that, isn't because of tobacco, but all the other additives in cigarette products that were not in them 30 to 40 years ago.   I have a relative who is a tobacco farmer, and I've used his tobacco in my pipes (the only smoking vice I have anymore is the occasional pipe or a cigar).   Smoking a tobacco leaf is not the same as smoking the chopped and sprayed product in a Marlboro.   The amount of additives in that stuff is monstrous, making it more lethal, more addictive, and more toxic than just drying  a tobacco leaf and shredding it yourself.     Anyway, smoke of any kind in the lungs is toxic,  but I wanted to point out that comparing the  two isn't a great argument for using and a pretty weak one for legalization.  You're basically saying they'll both kill you.
> 
> So then why is the President condoning it?


Uh, so if you have these studies demonstrating marijuana causing major health risks- you should get them peer reviewed and published, because they would be ground breaking. Literally the first of their kind. Are they prospective, double blind, human experiments? Especially the ones on adolescents- I wasn't aware that scientific bodies conducted human trials on children. Please, post links to these studies.

Also, post where the President condones marijuana use? This is an extremely slippery question; I know, I know, by a couple states getting MJ legalized, every republican in the world now paints President Obama as some ganja-mad cartel boss, but you find me the statement where President Obama says "Marijuana isn't harmful, we are going to legalize it, and kids should do it!"

Because _that's _condoning it. Not saying anything to the contrary isn't condoning it.


----------



## reed11b (Jan 24, 2014)

pardus said:


> Weak? I think it's dying...
> 
> http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.html#blood


 Won't come up on .gov computer,  but if it's blood based, it's faulty. THC is fat soluable, so the amount in the bloodstream has very little to do with the level of intoxication.
Reed


----------



## pardus (Jan 24, 2014)

reed11b said:


> Won't come up on .gov computer,  but if it's blood based, it's faulty. THC is fat soluable, so the amount in the bloodstream has very little to do with the level of intoxication.
> Reed



Well I guess the quoted studies are wrong then.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 24, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> In Colorado they established a blood content standard, so I don't know how that is tested. Also as to how we will see an increase, the people that would be smoking pot are already doing so. I don't think people will flock to the drug if it is legalized. So I think accidents relating to MJ use will likely remain at a similar level.


I am willing to bet there are people who don't use it because it's illegal; and would (at least once) smoke it if it were legal
Basic safety rule: Increase the number of people engaged in an activity, and you increase the (raw) number of incidents.


----------



## tova (Jan 24, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> I wonder what the ramifications from a pulmonary stand point on an individual will be down the road?



It doesn't have to be down the road - there have already been toddlers coming into ERs under the influence of 2nd hand smoke from their home environments where it is in use. I get where it the amount of time and resources on keeping it illegal doesn't seem to deter usage; it should be allowed for true medical need - I also get that in some cultures, it is deeply engrained in their heritage. Yet when it comes in through apartment walls (at least in older apartments), interferes with someone like myself who has pulmonary issues, severe allergies to smoke, and affects my heart, I draw the line. No one has the right to interfere with my right to breathe - and yes, I get I have no right to interfere with others either - but - where someone's right to a "recreational" atmospheric condition ends, my right to my atmospheric condition begins - and I shouldn't have to pay for the privilege of breathing (really don't want to go back on portable O2). If nothing else, at least have designated smoking areas/clubs (where there can be proper ventilation) for people who are so desperate enough to need an artificial high.


----------



## goon175 (Jan 24, 2014)

tova said:


> It doesn't have to be down the road - there have already been toddlers coming into ERs under the influence of 2nd hand smoke from their home environments where it is in use. I get where it the amount of time and resources on keeping it illegal doesn't seem to deter usage; it should be allowed for true medical need - I also get that in some cultures, it is deeply engrained in their heritage. Yet when it comes in through apartment walls (at least in older apartments), interferes with someone like myself who has pulmonary issues, severe allergies to smoke, and affects my heart, I draw the line. No one has the right to interfere with my right to breathe - and yes, I get I have no right to interfere with others either - but - where someone's right to a "recreational" atmospheric condition ends, my right to my atmospheric condition begins - and I shouldn't have to pay for the privilege of breathing (really don't want to go back on portable O2). If nothing else, at least have designated smoking areas/clubs (where there can be proper ventilation) for people who are so desperate enough to need an artificial high.



How is that any different from cigarette smoke though? If you live in a no-smoking apt. complex, then I assume that means you can't smoke ANYTHING.


----------



## tova (Jan 24, 2014)

goon175 said:


> How is that any different from cigarette smoke though? If you live in a no-smoking apt. complex, then I assume that means you can't smoke ANYTHING.


True - but not everyone lives in areas where non-smoking housing is encouraged and apartments that are non-smoking have few openings and many applicants.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 24, 2014)

tova said:


> ....snipped for length....


Where are those reports of infant pulmonary injury due to second hand marijuana smoke? I'd be eager to read them. 

It's not as if people will be able to light up wherever they want- it's still smoking, so it's not as if the "no smoking" rules don't apply. Colorado is actually a Smoke Free State, meaning all restaurants are smoke free, as well as most other public places. I assume you wouldn't be denied your right to breathe now any more than you would then, regardless of the kind of smoke. 



reed11b said:


> Won't come up on .gov computer,  but if it's blood based, it's faulty. THC is fat soluable, so the amount in the bloodstream has very little to do with the level of intoxication.
> Reed


Gonna disagree with you there. It's pretty simple, even with a fat soluble substance, to set and measure parameters for intoxicants, and it's done so across a wide spectrum. Metabolites, triglycerides, and other body substances change in relation to ingestion of an outside agent, and that can be accurately measured. Now, the trick is to do this without requiring bloodwork- like a finger stick/field testing kit. 



SOWT said:


> I am willing to bet there are people who don't use it because it's illegal; and would (at least once) smoke it if it were legal
> Basic safety rule: Increase the number of people engaged in an activity, and you increase the (raw) number of incidents.


Speaking statistically, the increase isn't going to be insane. Well, except for the fact that now people will surely report MJ use as the root cause, whereas before patients will straight up lie to you because it's illegal. I am sure there will be a healthy spin and knee-jerk report on the "reported use" of marijuana in the near future. Really, though, the penalization for honesty will be gone, and people will more freely report.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 24, 2014)

tova said:


> It doesn't have to be down the road - there have already been toddlers coming into ERs under the influence of 2nd hand smoke from their home environments where it is in use. I get where it the amount of time and resources on keeping it illegal doesn't seem to deter usage; it should be allowed for true medical need - I also get that in some cultures, it is deeply engrained in their heritage. Yet when it comes in through apartment walls (at least in older apartments), interferes with someone like myself who has pulmonary issues, severe allergies to smoke, and affects my heart, I draw the line. No one has the right to interfere with my right to breathe - and yes, I get I have no right to interfere with others either - but - where someone's right to a "recreational" atmospheric condition ends, my right to my atmospheric condition begins - and I shouldn't have to pay for the privilege of breathing (really don't want to go back on portable O2). If nothing else, at least have designated smoking areas/clubs (where there can be proper ventilation) for people who are so desperate enough to need an artificial high.



So you are saying kids came into the ER for marijuana overdose due to second hand smoke inhalation?


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 24, 2014)

Here is a good op-ed about the topic.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsu...t-marijuana-and-prohibitionists-are-outraged/

Basically all the arguments we have talked about summed up.


----------



## Centermass (Jan 24, 2014)

reed11b said:


> How much you want to bet, that now that ALL use is not illegal, someone will be able to test for THC intoxication? I.E. a way to bust MJ buzzed drivers.
> Reed



It's been done for years as even though it has yet (Cannabis) to be completely legalized, and if you think it's the only thing other than alcohol shown in direct correlation to cognitive impairment, add in all the others, such as hallucinogenics, analgesics, anesthetics, etc. Operating a motor vehicle and exhibiting signs similar to those of alcohol impairment. Of course, most officers have some funny experiences with stops like this. You get stopped, I walk on up. I tell you to roll down your window and it's like Cheech and Chong times 20 have been inside the vehicle along with you....

Reasonable suspicion begins at first observation, such as swerving, sitting there at an intersection and the light cycles more than once and you haven't moved, failure to maintain your lane integrity and others, then continues during personal contact once the fumigation cloud clears up and beside the driver. Then you get the usual SFST's. HGN, VGN, pupil dilation, Divided Attention, and observations pertaining to interaction, slurred speech, blood shot eyes, and performance results based on the tests administered. Granted, nystagmus isn't always present in THC use alone, however, from my standpoint, you may be over lapping (Impairment from more than one substance)

Implied consent for either an alco sensor and or intoxilyzer, and or by warrant (If not by consent) for blood and oral samples for concentration levels. THC concentrations usually between 5 and 10 ng/ml can be shown to establish a pretty good case regarding THC limit for showing threshold impairment combined with all the other results and the officer's testimony.

Many variables exist which make it more difficult to detect, such as body mass, diet, frequency of use, tobacco users etc. But most officers, based on their training and experience have been down this road....a lot.

If you think this is something new, think again.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 24, 2014)

Centermass said:


> The Whole Damn Thing


My main man, you killed it. Great post, and thanks for the knowledge. 

Absolutely spot on.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 24, 2014)

Centermass said:


> It's been done for years as even though it has yet (Cannabis) to be completely legalized, and if you think it's the only thing other than alcohol shown in direct correlation to cognitive impairment, add in all the others, such as hallucinogenics, analgesics, anesthetics, etc. Operating a motor vehicle and exhibiting signs similar to those of alcohol impairment. Of course, most officers have some funny experiences with stops like this. You get stopped, I walk on up. I tell you to roll down your window and it's like Cheech and Chong times 20 have been inside the vehicle along with you....
> 
> Reasonable suspicion begins at first observation, such as swerving, sitting there at an intersection and the light cycles more than once and you haven't moved, failure to maintain your lane integrity and others, then continues during personal contact once the fumigation cloud clears up and beside the driver. Then you get the usual SFST's. HGN, VGN, pupil dilation, Divided Attention, and observations pertaining to interaction, slurred speech, blood shot eyes, and performance results based on the tests administered. Granted, nystagmus isn't always present in THC use alone, however, from my standpoint, you may be over lapping (Impairment from more than one substance)
> 
> ...




Yep, we've been arresting for DWI (drugs) for awhile now....its all the same...impairment, alcohol or drugs.  One of the reasons we have patrol guys trained as DRE's (drug recognition expert).


----------



## pardus (Jan 24, 2014)

Kraut783 said:


> Yep, we've been arresting for DWI (drugs) for awhile now....its all the same...impairment, alcohol or drugs.  One of the reasons we have patrol guys trained as DRE's (drug recognition expert).



Sir, are you wasted?

Duuude, like totally!


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 24, 2014)

pardus said:


> Sir, are you wasted?
> 
> Duuude, like totally!


No officer, I'm not small; I'm tall.....


----------



## Brill (Jan 24, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Here is a good op-ed about the topic.
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsu...t-marijuana-and-prohibitionists-are-outraged/
> 
> Basically all the arguments we have talked about summed up.



Since we're quoting right wing sites: 

http://video.foxnews.com/v/31024149...Bucket&playlist_id=940325740001#sp=show-clips


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 24, 2014)

lindy said:


> Since we're quoting right wing sites:
> 
> http://video.foxnews.com/v/31024149...Bucket&playlist_id=940325740001#sp=show-clips


For the first time in the history of history, Bill OReilly might have actually given something resembling an ok talking piece.

(watches whole video)

Nevermind. Almost made it.


----------



## tova (Jan 25, 2014)

amlove21 said:


> Where....



PM inbound.


----------



## pardus (Jan 25, 2014)

lindy said:


> Since we're quoting right wing sites:
> 
> http://video.foxnews.com/v/31024149...Bucket&playlist_id=940325740001#sp=show-clips





amlove21 said:


> For the first time in the history of history, Bill OReilly might have actually given something resembling an ok talking piece.
> 
> (watches whole video)
> 
> Nevermind. Almost made it.



I can't fault him on that...


----------



## pardus (Jan 25, 2014)

tova said:


> PM inbound.



Post it for us all to see.


----------



## tova (Jan 25, 2014)

pardus said:


> Post it for us all to see.


Forwarded you the PM.


----------



## pardus (Jan 25, 2014)

tova said:


> Forwarded you the PM.



Medically speaking, that is evidentially meaningless. Studies and medical evidence are the standard required.


----------



## tova (Jan 25, 2014)

pardus said:


> Medically speaking, that is evidentially meaningless. Studies and medical evidence are the standard required.



Then delete everything I posted in this thread - my apologies to all.


----------



## pardus (Jan 25, 2014)

tova said:


> Then delete everything I posted in this thread - my apologies to all.



No need, but thank you for your insight.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 25, 2014)

This is a productive conversation, as there are many different view points being said/seen. I have learned from this thread even though I haven't agreed with 100% of it, and I think that it should continue. 

Let's just keep in mind- scientific/medical studies are one thing. Articles from a random website are another, and your opinion gained from a combination of your personal experience, websites, articles, and studies are completely another. 

Voice your opinion, but make it clear it's your opinion. Don't say "studies have shown" or anything resembling that without putting up the link to your source unless you are ready to get called out for a lack of integrity, cause that's what's going to happen from here on out.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jan 26, 2014)

*This is my opinion:*

Legalize every drug, Tax it, Invade Mexico, Call it south Texas, charge people to Visit, kill all cartel, make a Ft Knox but for drugs, use money earned to fix America!!!!

Its not perfect, nothing is....but I think the pros outweigh the cons here when it comes to legalizing Marijuana......



No animals were harmed in the making of this opinion!


----------



## JBS (Jan 26, 2014)

The studies I have (come across) regarding juveniles are clinical, and I'll post them as soon as I can sit down behind the PC.   I'm on my phone and only have a limited amount of time atm.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 26, 2014)

Jon Stewarts hilarious take on legalization
http://m.comedycentral.com/tds_vide...tp://m.comedycentral.com/tds_video_index.rbml


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 26, 2014)

JBS said:


> The studies I have (come across) regarding juveniles are clinical, and I'll post them as soon as I can sit down behind the PC.   I'm on my phone and only have a limited amount of time atm.


No worries. Call it a due out.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 26, 2014)

So not to be a dick, but why would juvenile tests have any bearing on the legalization and health risks posed to the population who would be affected, which in this case is adults.


----------



## reed11b (Jan 26, 2014)

Centermass said:


> It's been done for years as even though it has yet (Cannabis) to be completely legalized, and if you think it's the only thing other than alcohol shown in direct correlation to cognitive impairment, add in all the others, such as hallucinogenics, analgesics, anesthetics, etc. Operating a motor vehicle and exhibiting signs similar to those of alcohol impairment. Of course, most officers have some funny experiences with stops like this. You get stopped, I walk on up. I tell you to roll down your window and it's like Cheech and Chong times 20 have been inside the vehicle along with you....
> 
> Reasonable suspicion begins at first observation, such as swerving, sitting there at an intersection and the light cycles more than once and you haven't moved, failure to maintain your lane integrity and others, then continues during personal contact once the fumigation cloud clears up and beside the driver. Then you get the usual SFST's. HGN, VGN, pupil dilation, Divided Attention, and observations pertaining to interaction, slurred speech, blood shot eyes, and performance results based on the tests administered. Granted, nystagmus isn't always present in THC use alone, however, from my standpoint, you may be over lapping (Impairment from more than one substance)
> 
> ...


Field sobriety tests, test motor skill impairment, such as a diabetic who has not taken his insulin, a boxer after a sparring session or me after a WOD when I have not had enough to drink. They are a far cry from a breathalyzer style test, that shows actual blood alcohol levels. @pardus I stand corrected. According to the article you linked to, there is a time when the blood levels can be high enough to show immediate use and intoxication. It did not, however, say if a field blood test was available. My question stands.
Reed


----------



## racing_kitty (Jan 26, 2014)

reed11b said:


> Field sobriety tests, test motor skill impairment, such as a diabetic who has not taken his insulin, a boxer after a sparring session or me after a WOD when I have not had enough to drink. They are a far cry from a breathalyzer style test, that shows actual blood alcohol levels. @pardus I stand corrected. According to the article you linked to, there is a time when the blood levels can be high enough to show immediate use and intoxication. It did not, however, say if a field blood test was available. My question stands.
> Reed


 
From USA Today:


> A. Driving under the influence of marijuana will remain illegal. A vehicle operator also is not allowed to smoke while driving.
> 
> Anyone with whose test results show five nanograms or more of delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol, known as THC, per milliliter of whole blood while driving can be arrested for DUI.
> 
> ...



From WPTV:


> If police have a reasonable suspicion that a driver is high on weed, an officer will likely ask the driver to take a roadside sobriety test, which is the same test given to people suspected to be under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. If the driver fails or refuses to take the sobriety test, then the officer will have to decide whether to arrest the driver and conduct a voluntary blood test.
> 
> Lewis said samples used for the blood tests will be taken by medical professionals. He added that an ambulance could be called to the scene to take the sample, or a driver could be taken to a nearby emergency room to have the blood drawn.
> 
> ...



Referencing my earlier post, it's not Colorado who's been using the roadside swab test, it was LA.  From the Southern California Public Radio website:


> Starting this weekend, law enforcement in Los Angeles will begin expanded use of saliva swab test kits on drivers suspected of driving under the influence of drugs. The change comes just in time for New Year's Eve celebrations.
> 
> The testing is already used at some LAPD DUI checkpoints and at three stations that have jails. A $520,000 grant awarded to the L.A. City Attorney’s Office will expand the regular use of the test next year.
> 
> ...



Does this even remotely answer your question?


----------



## reed11b (Jan 26, 2014)

racing_kitty said:


> From USA Today:
> 
> 
> From WPTV:
> ...


5 nanograms of THC in the bloodstream is easy to achieve based on what could be stored in the fat. It has nothing to do with actually being currently under the influence. According to the article the @pardus posted 110 to 140 nonograms show actual recent use and intoxication. The swab test only shows use, not level. Field sobriety tests do not show level or even use. They are all stop gaps. I'm willing to bet that accurate forms of testing current THC intoxication in the field are in the works since more states may start to decriminalize the use of Marijuana. 
Reed


----------



## racing_kitty (Jan 26, 2014)

reed11b said:


> 5 nanograms of THC in the bloodstream is easy to achieve based on what could be stored in the fat. It has nothing to do with actually being currently under the influence. According to the article the @pardus posted 110 to 140 nonograms show actual recent use and intoxication. The swab test only shows use, not level. Field sobriety tests do not show level or even use. They are all stop gaps. I'm willing to bet that accurate forms of testing current THC intoxication in the field are in the works since more states may start to decriminalize the use of Marijuana.
> Reed



If you had read the entire articles, it addresses the issues of how differently amount X, in this case 5 nanograms, affects different users, as well as how long term use can establish a tolerance.  

Here's a question: If someone has used pot within the last three hours, would you or would you not look for a way to test for intoxication?  Would you, or would you not be suspicious that the person is high, in the same way that if you could smell beer, you would wonder if the person had an alcohol buzz (not necessarily piss drunk, just a buzz)?

My opinion is that if you can test for proof of recent consumption, then I would couple that with a roadside sobriety test to demonstrate impaired ability or a lack thereof.  No matter where your body stores the marijuana (i.e. fat soluble vs water soluble), the presence of certain metabolites can indicate recent ingestion of the particular substance.  It's the same way that urine tests looked for the recent use of spice.  While it is not actual THC, it is a cannabinoid, and certain metabolites will be present if you have recently used the drug.  

Someone who's going into insulin shock is not going to have the metabolites present that would indicate recent ingestion of THC.  That's going to come down to excellent training, and officers who find themselves in such a situation using their brains.  Situational awareness.


----------



## reed11b (Jan 26, 2014)

Stop using big words! I have a headache. Not saying the stop gaps can't work, I'm just wondering if a foolproof field test to determine actual current level of intoxication, such as we have with BAC is coming. There is no argument here, why is everyone trying  to argue? Ugh.
Reed


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 26, 2014)

I think this is a no brainer.  Go smoke some pot, go for a drive and see what transpires or not?


----------



## racing_kitty (Jan 26, 2014)

reed11b said:


> Stop using big words! I have a headache. Not saying the stop gaps can't work, I'm just wondering if a foolproof field test to determine actual current level of intoxication, such as we have with BAC is coming. There is no argument here, why is everyone trying  to argue? Ugh.
> Reed



While BAC is a good indicator of how much alcohol is in the bloodstream, the level of intoxication for a certain amount is different for different people.  A skinny waif of a girl who doesn't drink but twice a year and blows a 0.08 is going to feel it a lot more than a 6' tall, 250lb functioning alcoholic who blows a 0.08; hell, he could be showing signs of withdrawals.  It's the same with pot, and those who build up a tolerance.  Five nanograms is going to affect people differently.  Establish proof that they ingested, measure amounts vs. exhibited level of impairment.  Use judgment until a precedent has been set.

I don't think of it as an argument, rather a spirited debate amongst peers.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 26, 2014)

The following comparison of the various effects of different substances on spiders is interesting.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 26, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> So not to be a dick, but why would juvenile tests have any bearing on the legalization and health risks posed to the population who would be affected, which in this case is adults.


It was in reference to the overall harmfulness of mj. 

I don't want to parphrase @JBS , so adjust if I am off here- you were trying to establish the overall harm of mj, and were using the info you had on harm to adolescents as some sort of support to that claim. I inferred you meant to say, "If we legalize mj, adolescents will be at greater risk because they will have more access, and here are the studies to show that it is, in fact, harmful."


----------



## AWP (Jan 26, 2014)

Adolescent usage shouldn't enter into the discussion. We're talking about legalizing it for adults, not selling it at Walmart next to the Doritos. I don't think it unreasonable to believe that similar safeguards/ restrictions in place for alcohol or tobacco will also apply to mj. As for kids getting their grubby paws on the drug, no one uses that argument to consider banning alcohol or tobacco, but curiously they use it to ban guns or place greater restrictions on firearms.

If we're talking about second hand smoke, again...why doesn't that argument apply to tobacco?

We can't go down one path without going down the other.

Honestly, if states are so fired up (haha!) about legal weed and how that will impact society, let CO and WA act as test cases. In 2-3 years everyone will see those states as either cutting edge or ground zero for the apocalypse.


----------



## Scotth (Jan 26, 2014)

Back in early 2000's we had a study in Minnesota and it said that for high school kids, it was easier to buy a bag of weed then it was to buy a pack of cigs

It comes down to whether weed is anymore harmful then alcohol and whether the government should regulate it.

As a life long non-smoker of any kind and a life long drinker (at least from 15).  I have seen the destruction caused by drinking and from general drug use.

Nobody is not using weed because it's outlawed or any more likely to use because it is legalize.  Weed just doesn't have that stamigimation that other drugs have.

Drug use is a societal issue but at least IMHO collect what you can in sin taxes to support the cost of the issue because today we aren't collecting anything.


----------



## goon175 (Jan 27, 2014)

Don't worry about kids having more access to weed, worry about the doctors shoving ADHD medication down every kids throat. If I had a dollar for every kid that walked into my recruiting office, and checked 'yes' to ADHD medication.... 

I would rather any kid in America smoke weed than be blasted with the slew of prescription medications they currently are receiving.


----------



## Centermass (Jan 27, 2014)

reed11b said:


> How much you want to bet, that now that ALL use is not illegal, someone will be able to test for THC intoxication? I.E. a way to bust MJ buzzed drivers.
> Reed



Thought I pretty much explained it already.



reed11b said:


> Field sobriety tests, test motor skill impairment, such as a diabetic who has not taken his insulin, a boxer after a sparring session or me after a WOD when I have not had enough to drink. They are a far cry from a breathalyzer style test, that shows actual blood alcohol levels. @pardus I stand corrected. According to the article you linked to, there is a time when the blood levels can be high enough to show immediate use and intoxication. It did not, however, say if a field blood test was available. My question stands.
> Reed



Blood samples are not done in the field unless it's a forensic investigator or a CS tm collecting evidence at a scene, or someone, usually post mortem.

The diabetic condition is easy enough to validate, verify and confirm. As for it happening, yes it does. And not very often.



reed11b said:


> 5 nanograms of THC in the bloodstream is easy to achieve based on what could be stored in the fat. It has nothing to do with actually being currently under the influence. According to the article the @pardus posted 110 to 140 nonograms show actual recent use and intoxication. The swab test only shows use, not level. *Field sobriety tests do not show level or even use.* They are all stop gaps. I'm willing to bet that accurate forms of testing current THC intoxication in the field are in the works since more states may start to decriminalize the use of Marijuana.
> Reed



They are not "Stop gaps"

Until NIK, CMI or any other companies develop clinically proven and medically recognized instruments as an accepted "Standard", those procedures for showing "LEVEL OF IMPAIRMENT" have been in place for years, and will be until.......

Unless you've ever been trained and certified for impairment recognition, detection, testing, you would know there is no "Magic Bullet"

Go back and re-read my post.

There's your answer.


----------



## JBS (Jan 29, 2014)

amlove21 said:


> It was in reference to the overall harmfulness of mj.
> 
> I don't want to parphrase @JBS , so adjust if I am off here- you were trying to establish the overall harm of mj, and were using the info you had on harm to adolescents as some sort of support to that claim. I inferred you meant to say, "If we legalize mj, adolescents will be at greater risk because they will have more access, and here are the studies to show that it is, in fact, harmful."


I'm posting the study more to support my claims that MJ damages the human brain, not necessarily as an argument for-or against legalization.   In other words, I made the claim, and it was undercut as unfounded opinion.  Well, much of the content of my post are opinion, but they are not misinformed.   Marijuana as is most commonly consumed damages the brain.   When, how, how much, at what age, all that is open to further study.

But this thread, and many thousands of conversations on the internet that I've briefly scanned over the years, and occasionally read all talk about marijuana from the post-stoner-age perspective that marijuana causes only mild, temporary euphoria (or something a few shades short of that), and that it's completely harmless- virtually free of side effects worth caring about, and that's total bunk.   *Fact is it harms the brain in exactly all the ways I said it does earlier in the thread, or at least there is solid clinical, peer-reviewed published evidence to support the claim that it does.*  I guess I'm just saddened that we even have to post studies verifying what I thought most of us all shared as an almost universally common high school "stoner kid" experience.  Do we or do we not all remember 2 or 3 pot heads from our youth who served as a good example of why we shouldn't smoke weed?

It seems we have two schools of thought:


*A:* _Virtually harmless good fun, safer than alcohol, can't see a problem with it, "why do uptight (fill in the favorite hate-on-group-du-jour) always go after this drug?"_

*B* (which is where I come from):  Weed is bad for you, bad for the population of the United States, harms the brain, causes permanent memory loss, and overall reduction in what amounts to cognitive function.  Permanent, irreversible, and probably directly proportional to the quantity of the drug consumed/used
Here are but a few.  I've now found perhaps more than 70 different studies.

*Marijuana May Disrupt Brain Development* http://www.livescience.com/5298-marijuana-disrupt-brain-development.html _(_Summary:_  Journal of Psychiatric Research,_ led by Ashtari, New York State; 14 subjects (heavy marijuana users) and 14 controls; used brain imaging_)_
*Marijuana Use in Adolescents Causes Permanent Brain Abnormalities* _(_Summary: Published in _Neuropsychopharmacology,_ Led by Keller & Mullins Raver, University of Maryland School of Medicine; ""This study is an example of how the basic science research taking place in our state-of-the-art laboratories can impact human health and inform health policy," says E. Albert Reece, M.D., Ph.D., M.B.A., Vice President for Medical Affairs at the University of Maryland and John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and Dean of the University of Maryland School of Medicine. "We are proud of this groundbreaking discovery and look forward to watching this research develop further. "http://www.livescience.com/5298-marijuana-disrupt-brain-development.html

*Marijuana Causes Drop in IQ* ( _Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences_; "Recent reports show that fewer adolescents believe that regular cannabis use is harmful to health. Concomitantly, adolescents are initiating cannabis use at younger ages, and more adolescents are using cannabis on a daily basis. The purpose of the present study was to test the association between persistent cannabis use and neuropsychological decline and determine whether decline is concentrated among adolescent-onset cannabis users. Participants were members of the Dunedin Study, a prospective study of a birth cohort of 1,037 individuals followed from birth..."; http://healthland.time.com/2012/08/28/does-weekly-marijuana-use-by-teens-really-cause-a-drop-in-iq/
*Teens Who Smoke Pot Damage Their Brain* (Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago)http://www.nbcnews.com/health/teen-pot-use-could-hurt-brain-memory-new-research-suggests-2D11741988
*Marijuana Causes Brain Damage* ( Dr. Marc Seal, from Melbourne’s Murdoch Children’s Research Institute ) http://www.news.com.au/national/marijuana-causes-brain-damage-study/story-fndo4eg9-1226446908221  (study included 92 people)

For every one study above that anyone cares to dismiss out-of-hand, I'm certain at this point I could post two or more legitimate University, or medical research group peer-reviewed studies to replace it, each one supporting the understanding that marijuana smoking causes brain damage.


----------



## JBS (Jan 29, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> Adolescent usage shouldn't enter into the discussion. We're talking about legalizing it for adults, not selling it at Walmart next to the Doritos. I don't think it unreasonable to believe that similar safeguards/ restrictions in place for alcohol or tobacco will also apply to mj. As for kids getting their grubby paws on the drug, no one uses that argument to consider banning alcohol or tobacco, but curiously they use it to ban guns or place greater restrictions on firearms.
> 
> If we're talking about second hand smoke, again...why doesn't that argument apply to tobacco?
> 
> ...



Adolescent usage ABSOLUTELY should enter the discussion.  

It's also a studied phenomenon that open public discussion of marijuana as though it is safe, good as medicine, etc. leads to greater use (per widespread, controlled polling across the country) among juveniles.

We don't watch Jonah Hill and Snoop and all these other popular comedians (if I sit here I could think of 50 others) and movie stars on the big screen passing a bottle of whiskey, do we?   They aren't passing around a lighted Marlboro, are they?   Most popular culture comedy flicks today feature youthful stars associating smoking marijuana and getting high as cool, harmless, etc., completely without consequence.   Who watches those movies?   A large percentage of those films are watched by adolescents.   

Just as an example, take a look at Jonah Hill's awards (at least a dozen or more "Teen Choice Awards"):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonah_Hill


The legalization of marijuana is not comparable to legalization of cigarettes, alcohol, or any other controlled substance, because these other substances presently do not have the backing of popular culture.


----------



## goon175 (Jan 30, 2014)

> The legalization of marijuana is not comparable to legalization of cigarettes, alcohol, or any other controlled substance, because these other substances presently do not have the backing of popular culture.



Cigarettes are definitely not "cool" anymore, but alcohol is glorified as much if not more than recreational marijuana use. I will use the popularity of the Hangover movies as exhibit A.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Jan 30, 2014)

JBS said:


> ~SNIP
> 
> 
> The legalization of marijuana is not comparable to legalization of cigarettes, alcohol, or any other controlled substance, because these other substances presently do not have the backing of popular culture.


Seriously?  That might be one of the most baseless comments I've seen in a while.
Who owns Ciroc?
Who owns Belvedere?
Who touts Ace of Spades?
Do these guys also reference weed in their songs?  Yes.  But saying one doesn't have the pop-culture backing that the other does is simply incorrect.
I can name one country song where a reference to MJ is made.  Want to know how many I can name that reference alcohol? 
As goon175  pointed out, movies are very much the same.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 30, 2014)

SkrewzLoose said:


> Seriously?  That might be one of the most baseless comments I've seen in a while.
> I can name one country song where a reference to MJ is made.  Want to know how many I can name that reference alcohol?
> As goon175  pointed out, movies are very much the same.


To be fair, I can name two: "I'll never smoke weed with Willie again" by Toby Keith, and "Sunday Morning Comin' Down" by Johnny Cash.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Jan 30, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> To be fair, I can name two: "I'll never smoke weed with Willie again" by Toby Keith, and "Sunday Morning Comin' Down" by Johnny Cash.


I was speaking personally.  I guess I'm not as hip as I imagined...


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 30, 2014)

Did someone say something about country music and weed? You kids need to keep up.


----------



## JHD (Jan 30, 2014)

What about the all time romantic favorite, (Give me) Weed Instead of Roses?  Yes, it really is a song.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 30, 2014)

@JBS did you read the articles about studies you posted? Because you didn't post the link to peer reviewed studies or even scientific papers, but rather journalistic interpretation of scientific papers, all of which had flaws. Your first link says this, which speaks to correlation  rather than causation:

"For one, it involved a small number of subjects. Also, five of the 14 subjects with heavy cannabis use also had a history of alcohol abuse, which may have contributed an effect. Also, it is possible that the brain abnormalities may have predisposed the subjects to drug dependence, rather than drug usage causing the brain abnormalities."  
So all there evidence is not causative....Every one of the articles you posted says the same thing, the samples are too small and the data is too preliminary.


Lastly again the legal age for using the drug is 21 and like has been pointed out time and again, there is *ZERO* evidence to support damage to the brain of an adult, and in fact the evidence shows that there is zero damage done to a fully formed brain. 

As to the last part, about tobacco and alcohol not having the backing of Hollywood, have you not watched basically any movie ever? The movie that launched Jonah Hill( who you pointed out) was Superbad, the plot of which revolved around kids(high schoolers) trying to buy alcohol so they could have sex with girls at a party.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Jan 30, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> Did someone say something about country music and weed? You kids need to keep up.


The initial claim was regarding "pop culture" not some random old guy singing about weed while playing a guitar.  




Love you Chop!!


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 30, 2014)

@SkrewzLoose , Jim Stafford is not some random old guy.  You damn kids today.  No respect.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jan 30, 2014)

He's also not popular. Sheesh, Blondie!!

 love ya!!


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 30, 2014)

racing_kitty said:


> He's also not popular. Sheesh, Blondie!!
> 
> love ya!!


You are just a kid too!


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 31, 2014)

So, I have been off the grid for a bit. 








JBS said:


> *Fact is it harms the brain in exactly all the ways I said it does earlier in the thread, or at least there is solid clinical, peer-reviewed published evidence to support the claim that it does.*
> 
> For every one study above that anyone cares to dismiss out-of-hand, I'm certain at this point I could post two or more legitimate University, or medical research group peer-reviewed studies to replace it, each one supporting the understanding that marijuana smoking causes brain damage.


@TLDR20 stated it already- but no, you haven't proved it harmed the brain the way you said it does. And yes, there are some studies out there that have shown what seems to be harm to the brain from marijuana smoking- but words have meaning. Your challenge is this, and don't be mad at me, for you're the one that laid the gauntlet. You posted 4 articles that referenced small group retrospective studies- find me 8 prospective peer reviewed studies that state plainly, preferably in the abstract, that marijuana causes brain damage. For instance- here is a link to an _actual study. _Read the abstract. It says, _"Results are discussed in terms of cannabinoid actions on hippocampal functioning and, in general, support the hypothesis that the action of marihuana in the brain may focus in the hippocampal region and produce behavioral changes similar to that resulting from traumatic injury or removal of the region. _
This means, for this focus groups, people that were intoxicated displayed the same traits as those that had hippocampal damage. Nothing about permanaent brain damage. Unless you are a chemobiologist, a neurosccientist, or a psychologist, you don't get to say your above, bolded, red statement.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 31, 2014)

JBS said:


> I guess I'm just saddened that we even have to post studies verifying what I thought most of us all shared as an almost universally common high school "stoner kid" experience.  Do we or do we not all remember 2 or 3 pot heads from our youth who served as a good example of why we shouldn't smoke weed?


Hard to respond here without going 100% dickhead status. I'll try. 

It saddens me that I have to tell another grown man that he can't just say some  crap he read on the internet and pass it off as fact. It saddens me that we still live in a society where someone forms an opinion about an entire population of people from a limited group (usually 1 or 2) of people in high school and then apply that pedantic, narrow, highly illogical stereotype to that population later in life, as if that opinion is anything more than your attempt as a teenager to reconcile something you had never encountered before. Yes, we all remember 2 or 3 pot heads from high school/college/now. That fact has no bearing on the conversation now. 

And lastly- you don't speak for "we", as in "why we shouldn't smoke weed." No one is asking you to smoke weed. I won't be smoking it when it's legalized either, because I will have a security clearance and won't be allowed. But just because I won't be partaking in it doesn't mean I get to apply my personal feelings to national legislature. 



JBS said:


> It seems we have two schools of thought:
> 
> 
> *A:* _Virtually harmless good fun, safer than alcohol, can't see a problem with it, "why do uptight (fill in the favorite hate-on-group-du-jour) always go after this drug?"_
> ...


This is the last time I will be engaging with you specifically on this topic. And it's for reasons like the quoted. 

You show me where anyone on this forum, and I mean @TLDR20 , myself, @SkrewzLoose who occupy the counter point position here- have said anything even closely resembling your position "A". That's freaking ludicrous, and I am done with that nonsense. I want to be clear- I am not speaking as  mod on the board here, this conversation is great and I think it should keep going. I just won't be involved in it as another dude. 

You're out of your lane, arguing from authority, creating straw men, paraphrasing and either purposefully or unknowingly missing the entire point of a conversation to further your own personal beliefs, moving the goalposts, and feigning outrage under the guise of protecting adolescents from the evils of marijuana. 

I get it. We all get it. You don't like weed. You don't think it should be legalized. Write your congressman and your senator. Fight the good fight.


----------



## Brill (Jan 31, 2014)

One serious side effect that NOBODY has talked about:

Smoking weed, or consuming other drugs (e.g. Cocaine) MAY, in fact, cause the user to become President of The United States or if HEAVILY abused, a member of Congress.

FACT!


----------



## JHD (Jan 31, 2014)

I don't necessarily disagree with making it legal, provided it is treated in a similar fashion to alcohol and cigarettes.  Tax it, control it, keep away from kids, and hopefully reduce the illegal cash flow associated with the illegal activity.  For the record, I never smoked it and never had the desire to, but I probably inhaled enough at various parties, etc., to possibly count.

I am curious to see how it will play out in small town America.  I grew up in a rural area where weed was plentiful and cheap.  It was everywhere when I was in high school, and still is, now along with heavy meth use.

Even if states in The South legalize it, I am not sure much will change from the way it is now and has been, historically.  I see the biggest impact of legalization occurring in larger cities, but wonder if the stigma surrounding the use of Mary Jane will allow the pot growers to come out of the dark, so to speak.


----------



## JBS (Jan 31, 2014)

Lol, holy crap!

Again,  posting from phone with time demands atm.

1. Yes I read the links.  Thoroughly.  The studies are contained as links in the article.

B. The studies have varying numbers of pparticipants.   Some were of 18 or 20 people.   Another was of more than 1, 100 participants if I recall correctly.


III.  PLEASE take it easy killers;  nothing I posted was meant to be insulting.  The studies I linked to are varied because I thought referring to a variety of studies would be helpful.   One of them is even a study on rats, rather than humans.   I saw them, I read most of them in whole or at least the majority of them, and posted for all to see.


I didn't say ANYWHERE above that I PROVED anything, only that there is a body of clinical evidence from legitimate credentialed research entities providing evidence for my views.

More to follow.


----------



## JBS (Jan 31, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> @JBS did you read the articles about studies you posted? Because you didn't post the link to peer reviewed studies or even scientific papers, but rather journalistic interpretation of scientific papers, all of which had flaws. Your first link says this, which speaks to correlation  rather than causation:
> 
> "For one, it involved a small number of subjects. Also, five of the 14 subjects with heavy cannabis use also had a history of alcohol abuse, which may have contributed an effect. Also, it is possible that the brain abnormalities may have predisposed the subjects to drug dependence, rather than drug usage causing the brain abnormalities."
> So all there evidence is not causative....Every one of the articles you posted says the same thing, the samples are too small and the data is too preliminary.
> ...


One of the more recent Jonah Hill flicks has him and 20 other comedians all extolling the virtues of getting high; 

*This Is The End*2013*


----------



## DasBoot (Jan 31, 2014)

JBS said:


> One of the more recent Jonah Hill flicks has him and 20 other comedians all extolling the virtues of getting high;
> 
> *This Is The End*2013*


Have you seen the movie? They consume copious amounts of alcohol too. And how can you say they don't promote alcohol or tobacco? Have you heard of the Hangover trilogy? Old School?  Sideways? Thank You for Smoking? Those are just movies that have their entire plots based around positive depictions of alcohol or tobacco. That isn't even considering that almost every movie rated over PG depicts either alcohol use or characters smoking.


----------



## AWP (Jan 31, 2014)

I wonder if any studies were done about alcohol or tobacco use in film?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/10/health/smoking-trigger-rating-movie/


> Since 2007, the MPAA has included smoking among its key ratings criteria, along with language, sex, violence, and drug use. According to the association, film raters consider smoking in this broader context, and they also consider how frequent, glamorized, or historically relevant it is (as in period pieces, for instance).
> "The rating system does not tell filmmakers what to put in their films; it merely gives information about the level of content in each film and describes the elements that reach the level of the rating, so that parents can make choices for their children," said Howard Gantman, the MPAA's vice president of corporate communications.
> Of the 3,140 films that received a rating between May 2007 and March 2011, 54% contained at least one instance of smoking, according to MPAA statistics.


 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802064/


> However, MPAA ratings did not clearly distinguish films based on tobacco or alcohol use. Fifty percent of R-rated movies contained 124 seconds or more of tobacco use, comparable to 26% of PG-13 and 17% of PG movies. Fifty percent of R-rated movies contained 162 seconds or more of alcohol use, comparable to 49% of PG-13 and 25% of PG movies. Because of the high degree of overlap in alcohol and tobacco content between rating categories, the MPAA rating system, as currently defined, is not adequate for parents who wish to limit their children’s exposure to tobacco or alcohol content in movies.


 
Surely these legal for adults but illegal and harmful behaviors aren't seen in children's movie?

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=189199


> All G-rated, animated feature films released between 1937 and 1997 by 5 major production companies (Walt Disney Co, MGM/United Artists, Warner Brothers Studios, Universal Studios, and 20th Century Fox) that were available on videotape were reviewed for episodes of tobacco and alcohol use.
> 
> Of 50 films reviewed, 34 (68%) displayed at least 1 episode of tobacco or alcohol use. Twenty-eight (56%) portrayed 1 or more incidences of tobacco use, including all 7 films released in 1996 and 1997. Twenty-five films (50%) included alcohol use. Smoking was portrayed on screen by 76 characters for more than 45 minutes in duration; alcohol use was portrayed by 63 characters for 27 minutes. *Good characters use tobacco and alcohol as frequently as bad characters. *Cigars and wine are shown in these films more often than other tobacco or alcohol substances.
> 
> More than two thirds of *animated children's films* feature tobacco or alcohol use in story plots without clear verbal messages of any negative long-term health effects associated with use of either substance.


----------



## RustyShackleford (Jan 31, 2014)

But they now edit out Winston Churchill smoking a stogie.


----------



## JBS (Jan 31, 2014)

Putting aside the "have you read your own post/link/seen the movie" questions,  yes ffs I have.  And yes they all glorify alcohol TOO, but save the hangover trilogy,  alcohol isn't the focal point of these movies like weed has started to be more prominently showcased.

I think you've read my post differently than intended if you think I'm somehow defending Hollywood for their responsible portrayal of alcohol.   This thread isn't about alcohol.   Similarly we could talk about firearms and how their irresponsible portrayal in film,  but again the topic would spiral out of control.   I'm making the case that weed has undergone a tremendous swell of support in popular culture as has the pro-weed literature arguing for its harmless nature and the need for legalization. Smoking isn't cool anymore and old conservative fogies argued against it before it was cool to be against it.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Feb 1, 2014)

I'm not sure why you keep pushing for the pop-culture debate.  It's purely subjective and it's not quantifiable at all.  Not to mention that all of your examples have been quickly debunked.  Both alcohol and drugs (including, but not limited to weed) have been a part of pop-culture for decades.  That's why it's pop-culture.  I'm not going to rattle off a list of songs and movies that support that statement because I think we all could name most of them.  But as for a RECENT "swell of support" for weed Vs booze, it's just not there.


----------



## JBS (Feb 3, 2014)

SkrewzLoose said:


> I'm not sure why you keep pushing for the pop-culture debate.  It's purely subjective and it's not quantifiable at all.





> But as for a RECENT "swell of support" for weed Vs booze, it's just not there.



Okay, so which is it?   Is it "purely subjective", and  "not quantifable? or is it "non existent"?   I've seen marijuana popularized in film and pop culture starting with Cheech and Chong, up through a few dozen Snoop videos through the 1990's (he went quadruple Platinum in 1994 alone, and sold tens of millions of albums since then), we all laughed about weed's effects in Friday with Ice Cube, listened to it joked about it (and other drugs) with Chappelle, and seen it presented increasingly more mainstream right up through the present.

Actors, comedians, celebrities who have come out openly and publicly in the past 10-15 years actively in favor of legalized marijuana:

Morgan Freeman
Rihanna
Bill Maher
Andrew  Cuomo
Ben Jealous
Danny Devito
Jon Stewart
Rosario Dawson
Michael Moore
Bryan Cranston
Howard Dean
Richard Branson
Corey Booker
Bradd Pitt
Chris Hayes- Anchor on MSNBC
Jack Black
Chuck Schumer
Will  I.  Am
Piers Morgan
Miley Cyrus
Elton John
Quinten Tarantino
Benicio Del Toro
Lady Gaga
Andy Milonakis
Chris Rock
Jason Sodeikis
Seth Rogan
Elijah Wood
Deepok Chopra
Salma Hayek
Russell Simmons
Rachel Maddow
John Legend
Cenk Uyger
Lawrence O'Donnel (MSNBC)
Melissa Harris Perry- (MSNBC)
Mick Jagger
REDMAN
Jimmy Kimmel
Stephen Colbert
Dog The Bounty Hunter
Ron Paul
Joe Rogan
Carlos Santana
Dave Matthews
Scott Weiland
Elliott Spitzer
Alan Colmes
Adam Corolla
Susan Sarandon
George Lopez
Michael Douglas
Warren G
Oliver Stone
Phillip Seymour Hoffman
Billy Joe Armstrong
Snoop Dogg
Montell Williams
Meghan McCain
Big Boi
Al Sharpton
Jesse Ventura
Howard Stern
Danny Glover
Rand Paul
Maxine Waters
LZ Granderson (ESPN personality)
Woody Harrelson
Megan Fox
The President of The United States


etc., etc., etc.,

There are so many others, and you can't say these people are not shaping the public discourse for the past 20 years or so.   ONCE AGAIN, I'm not saying alcohol isn't bad for you, smoking, etc.   I'm making the case that marijuana has seen a surge of support in recent years in pop culture, and the drumbeat has become so strong, so as to drown out the (relatively few) legitimate studies that show it damages the brain.  Further, I'm making the case that a bottle of booze in the movies doesn't have quite the same effect in teenagers, and those who will smoke it more or perhaps for the first time as weed continues to be presented as harmless.

Almost nobody is going out there and saying that Budweiser/Vodka/Goldschlager/Jagermeister is actually quite good and useful as medicine.   And before you argue about recent studies about the efficacy of a glass of wine a day for its' antioxidant properties tell me the last time 50 high schoolers got together and broke out with a case of Cabernet.   Likewise, nobody argues that cigarettes are harmless.  But with marijuana this is the growing chorus across all media, music, television, film.  Marijuana: It's harmless, and might even be good for you.


----------



## JBS (Feb 3, 2014)

amlove21 said:


> It saddens me that I have to tell another grown man that he can't just say some  crap he read on the internet and pass it off as fact.


And by that you must be excluding the clincical studies I linked to earlier in the thread that flatly contradict what some posters (including those you mentioned) are saying.   Namely that no evidence exists that marijuana causes brain damage.  I'm not sure why you're taking it personally (or appear to be).   They said there's no evidence, then I posted EVIDENCE.  That's where the debate should focus, IMO.



> It saddens me that we still live in a society where someone forms an opinion about an entire population of people from a limited group (usually 1 or 2) of people in high school and then apply that pedantic, narrow, highly illogical stereotype to that population later in life, as if that opinion is anything more than your attempt as a teenager to reconcile something you had never encountered before. Yes, we all remember 2 or 3 pot heads from high school/college/now. That fact has no bearing on the conversation now.


  Okay, that's your opinion, just as the earlier statement was mine.  That's how perception works.  We see people smoking mass quantities of pot, and transform into dumbasses by the end of high school, we develop the perception it was the pot that did it to them.  Why would you find this irrelevant?  We're not statisticians, nor are we conducting a technical research study.  We're talking on a forum and backing up our claims with evidence as we go.  Perception is a valid entry in the discussion, where it might not be if we were collaborating on some kind of paper.



> And lastly- you don't speak for "we", as in "why we shouldn't smoke weed." No one is asking you to smoke weed. I won't be smoking it when it's legalized either, because I will have a security clearance and won't be allowed. But just because I won't be partaking in it doesn't mean I get to apply my personal feelings to national legislature.


I'm confused by this sentence.  Are you telling me what I do or don't do?  Because if so, I think you told me I was out of my lane earlier.  I'd suggest that unless I'm breaking a forum rule and you are correcting me for that as a moderator, this phrase which you use would apply to yourself.

If there's one thing you'll notice about my posts in the long time I've been posting here, it is that I have never once been knowingly disrespectful to anyone unless provoked with direct attacks, and usually even then I will refrain from responding in kind.   As a moderator I haven't seen you crack down on the various attacks toward my position- including personal attacks, but in this response, it seems you're telling ME what to do.  




> This is the last time I will be engaging with you specifically on this topic. And it's for reasons like the quoted.


I have no idea what this means.



> You show me where anyone on this forum, and I mean @TLDR20 , myself, @SkrewzLoose who occupy the counter point position here- have said anything even closely resembling your position "A". That's freaking ludicrous, and I am done with that nonsense. I want to be clear- I am not speaking as  mod on the board here, this conversation is great and I think it should keep going. I just won't be involved in it as another dude.



If I understand you correctly, you're saying that I've put words in your/other users mouths.   When I say "We", as in "We seem to have two schools of thought", I mean "We" as in America.    If that's what has you alarmed/bothered, then my mistake for lack of clarity.  Written forums have their limits, and one omitted word can change the meaning of an entire paragraph.



> You're out of your lane, arguing from authority, creating straw men, paraphrasing and either purposefully or unknowingly missing the entire point of a conversation to further your own personal beliefs, moving the goalposts, and feigning outrage under the guise of protecting adolescents from the evils of marijuana.



I'm not even MILDLY outraged.   My posts are about observations and backed by links to studies and quotes.   I can see where you- and a few others have suggested that we omit portions of the greater debate for the sake of the thread, but I'm of the opinion that those other sub-topics are relevant.     It has nothing to do with "missing the point" of the thread.  Once again, that was a statement from you that gives the appearance of an insult.  Either I am too ignorant to catch "the point", or else I'm dishonest and I am avoiding "the point".  Neither is the case.  We disagree on what the "point" of the thread is.  To me, the point is discussing "The Marijauana Debate".  The "Debate" in society today, from my point of view is legalization, the health impact, the body of knowledge, media portrayal; just a host of sub issues.   This is not in my view a linear debate strictly about legality and States profitibility.   Those are just parts of the greater discourse.



> I get it. We all get it. You don't like weed. You don't think it should be legalized. Write your congressman and your senator. Fight the good fight.


From this perspective, we should just close down the forum.  Talking about politics or popular issues of our day is a  waste of time unless I'm just wearing out shoe leather campaigning for my views where it counts- on the political trail.

@amlove21, your last post seems loaded with jabs.  Although I usually agree with the vast majority of your posts, this last one comes across as a personal attack rather than a debate.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 3, 2014)

@JBS do you have a scientific study that shows that using  marijuana damages the brain cells of adults?

Because you said this


JBS said:


> And by that you must be excluding the clincical studies I linked to earlier in the thread that flatly contradict what some posters (including those you mentioned) are saying.   Namely that no evidence exists that marijuana causes brain damage.  I'm not sure why you're taking it personally (or appear to be).   They said there's no evidence, then I posted EVIDENCE.  That's where the debate should focus, IMO.
> 
> .



I didn't in any of your posts find a link to a study or any research pointing to damage from marijuana usage to the brain of an adult. And as was pointed out, by science, even after smoking through a facemask the equivalent of 6 joints per day for 365 straight days, there is no evidence of brain damage, cell death, or cell abnormality in the brain. Even in the studies you semi-linked to it specifically said that while abnormalities were shown, the cause of the abnormalities was not known, and that the same abnormalities would not occur in an adult.

Now as to the point about why only adult studies should matter when addressing the legalization of a substance. First off I will use a comparison, which to me feels very accurate. Let us say we are about to lower the age you can legally drive a car from 18 to 16, and there was all this data saying that at age 16 the reflexes and cognitive capacity was there to drive at age 16, but then the opposing side has all this information about 14 year old drivers, and then presented that evidence as supporting their claim that the age shouldn't be lowered to 16. This is what you are doing in this argument. Many of us are arguing for the legalization of a substance for use by responsible adults in the privacy of their homes. But you are arguing against that use for reasons that will remain illegal. Underage use will remain illegal, just as underage drinking is illegal, and buying tobacco for minors is illegal, and in the context of my analogy 14 year olds would still not be able to drive. You are using a platform for your argument that doesn't even fit in the parameters of the discussion. This is the most frustrating part of any discussion of this topic. You are arguing against legalization because of things that will still be illegal.


----------



## AWP (Feb 3, 2014)

So...."weed's bad and shouldn't be legal."

Why aren't we banning alcohol and tobacco? We KNOW those are bad, we don't need any studies or Google or anything to know those two kill "a bunch" every year. Because they are grandfathered in they receive a pass? They are legal so they receive a pass but new substances are not?

Wait, didn't we ban alcohol once? How did that work out? I vaguely recall something about organized crime and shootouts and whatnot, so I'm guessing that "Prohibition" thing was a No Go?

We preach personal responsibility, but want the gov't to protect us from certain ills? Fair enough, so we're drawing the line at weed? Weed is the Tier 0, baseline, Rubicon we do not cross? The old stuff that kills you is cool, but the new stuff which may or may not isn't permitted?

For the children!


----------



## 0699 (Feb 3, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> Why aren't we banning alcohol and tobacco?


 
As the song says, "It's all about the money..."


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 3, 2014)

JBS said:


> Adolescent usage ABSOLUTELY should enter the discussion.
> 
> *It's also a studied phenomenon that open public discussion of marijuana as though it is safe, good as medicine, etc. leads to greater use (per widespread, controlled polling across the country) among juveniles.*
> 
> .



That is weird because this study which I have uploaded states the exact opposite. It states: 

"When states consider proposals to allow the medical use of marijuana under state law, the
concern often arises that such laws might “send the wrong message,” and therefore, cause an
increase in marijuana use among young people. The available evidence strongly suggests that this
hypothesis is incorrect and that enactment of state medical marijuana laws has not increased
adolescent marijuana use. Consequently, legislators should evaluate medical marijuana proposals
based on their own merits — without regard for the speculative and unsupported assertions about
the bills sending the “wrong message.”


----------



## JBS (Feb 3, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> That is weird because this study which I have uploaded states the exact opposite. It states:
> 
> "When states consider proposals to allow the medical use of marijuana under state law, the
> concern often arises that such laws might “send the wrong message,” and therefore, cause an
> ...


I ll link to a study that showed the trends.  Part of the study involved scientific polling and the sample was rather large if I recall correctly.

Your analogy on driving is a great one, except lacks full accounting for the enforcement aspect.   Namely when we drive we are out in public, out on roads and therefore likely to be subjected to more rigorous enforcement of existing law.  Legalization of marijuana is likely to increase possession,  increase availability of the product and according to the scientific polling I've looked at is likely to increase use among teens and pre teens.

@Free: in most of my debates with anyone you'll see that I'm very much pro individual responsibility.   My position on marijuana is based upon my conviction that making marijuana mainstream and socially acceptable among adults will ultimately have the unintended consequence of consumption by young minors- pre-teens and teens and ultimately (and this is key to me) contribute to the further decline of America.  I truly believe that.

We're on the downslide as a nation anyway.   Many people feel that way.    Fewer people are adapting to the changing world and while other nations are investing in tech skills and apprenticeship programs,  a huge number of American youth think they're going to come right out of school with a degree and "manage" something for $150k a year.   The marijuana debate to me is another spoke in the wheel of our ever-weakening national identity and to me it will degrade the abilities of the next generation to compete.  This is why-in part- I feel we need to consider how the weed debate is affecting the youth.  Ignoring the fallout of what we do would be irresponsible.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 3, 2014)

I don't have the study in front of me, but use amongst youths declined in the Netherlands after legalization/lessened enforcement.


----------



## Polar Bear (Feb 3, 2014)

You can legalize, make illegal etc. if you come up "Hot" plan on losing your job. All does damage....pick your poison.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 5, 2014)

I think the number of MJ impared Drivers will go up, and alcohal impared drivers will go down as legalization increases.

Via the Drudgereport.com:

http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/02/04/study-fatal-car-crashes-involving-marijuana-have-tripled/

SEATTLE (CBS Seattle) – According to a recent study, fatal car crashes involving pot use have tripled in the U.S.
“Currently, one of nine drivers involved in fatal crashes would test positive for marijuana,” Dr. Guohua Li, director of the Center for Injury Epidemiology and Prevention at Columbia, and co-author of the study told HealthDay News.
Researchers from Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health gathered data from six states – California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and West Virginia – that perform toxicology tests on drivers involved in fatal car accidents. This data included over 23,500 drivers that died within one hour of a crash between 1999 and 2010.
Li reported in the study that alcohol contributed to about 40 percent of traffic fatalities throughout the decade.
The researchers found that drugs played an increasing role in fatal traffic accidents. Drugged driving accounted for more than 28 percent of traffic deaths in 2010, which is 16 percent more than it was in 1999.
The researchers also found that marijuana was the main drug involved in the increase. It contributed to 12 percent of fatal crashes, compared to only 4 percent in 1999.
“If a driver is under the influence of alcohol, their risk of a fatal crash is 13 times higher than the risk of the driver who is not under the influence of alcohol,” Li said. “But if the driver is under the influence of both alcohol and marijuana, their risk increased to 24 times that of a sober person.”
Researchers found that the increase in marijuana use occurred across all ages for males and females.
Jonathan Adkins, deputy executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association, told HealthDay News that marijuana impairs driving in much the same way that alcohol does.
“This study shows an alarming increase in driving under the influence of drugs, and, in particular, it shows an increase in driving under the influence of both alcohol and drugs,” Jan Withers, national president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, added.
“MADD is concerned anytime we hear about an increase in impaired driving, since it’s 100 percent preventable,” Withers said. “When it comes to drugged driving versus drunk driving, the substances may be different but the consequences are the same – needless deaths and injuries.”
Adkins noted that the legalization of marijuana in some states makes these findings important to traffic safety officials.
“It’s a wake-up call for us in highway safety,” Adkins added. “The legalization of pot is going to spread to other states. It’s not even a partisan issue at this point. Our expectation is this will become the norm rather than the rarity.”
Li added that police do not have a test as accurate as the Breathalyzer to check a driver’s marijuana intoxication level.
“In the case of marijuana, I would say in maybe five years or more you will see some testing method or technique that may not as accurate as the Breathalyzer, but is more accurate than the testing devices we have today,” Li said.
The study was published online in the American Journal of Epidemiology.


----------



## pardus (Feb 5, 2014)

I do see and smell a surprising amount of marijuana coming from cars as they are driving.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 6, 2014)

Another interesting tidbit, I'l let folks here decide if the American Lung Association is reputable or not:

http://www.lung.org/associations/states/colorado/tobacco/marijuana.html

What is Marijuana?

Marijuana is a drug made from the dry, shredded parts of the Cannabis sativa hemp plant.  It is usually smoked in hand-rolled cigarettes called joints, in pipes, or in water pipes called bongs. It is also smoked in blunts, which are hollowed-out cigars filled with a mixture of tobacco and marijuana.

Marijuana contains a potent chemical called delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, more commonly known as THC. It’s very similar to chemicals that the brain naturally produces, and disrupts the function of these chemicals in the brain.

Marijuana today is more potent than marijuana of past decades. For a long time THC levels averaged 2.3 percent. Today, average THC levels are higher than 8 percent and can go up to 35 percent in medical marijuana.


Can Marijuana Be Medicine?

While TCH has been approved by the FDA as a drug, the marijuana plant has not. This is because there’s no proof yet that the benefits outweigh the risks.


Tobacco vs. Marijuana

Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains cancer-causing chemicals.  There are 33 cancer-causing chemicals contained in marijuana. Marijuana smoke also deposits tar into the lungs. In fact, when equal amounts of marijuana and tobacco are smoked, marijuana deposits four times as much tar into the lungs. This is because marijuana joints are un-filtered and often more deeply inhaled than cigarettes.

Marijuana smoke is also an irritant to the lungs, and frequent marijuana smokers can have many of the same respiratory problems experienced by people who smoke tobacco. These include coughing and phlegm production on most days, wheezing, bronchitis, and greater risk of lung infection.


Other Health Effects of Marijuana

Marijuana has many effects on the brain. It impairs short-term memory and motor coordination; slows reaction time; alters mood, judgment and decision-making; and in some people can cause severe anxiety or loss of touch with reality. Because of these effects, marijuana use more than doubles a driver’s risk of being in an accident.

Marijuana also affects the heart. The heart rate is raised 20-100 percent shortly after smoking, an effect which can last up to 3 hours and put users at an increased risk of heart attack.

Marijuana use can affect the general quality of the user’s life as well. Heavy marijuana users generally report lower life satisfaction, poorer mental and physical health, relationship problems and less academic and career success compared to their peers.


Youth and Marijuana

Marijuana use is particularly harmful to youth since the part of the brain that craves pleasure matures earlier than the area that controls our ability to understand risks and consequences. A national study by Monitoring the Future showed that in 2012 1.1% of 8th graders, 3.5% of 10th graders, and 6.5% of 12th graders reported using marijuana daily.

Marijuana is highly accessible, especially to older teenagers. In 2012, 37% of 8th graders, 69% of 10th graders, and 82% of 12th graders reported marijuana as being fairly easy or very easy to get. Studies show that as availability increases, perception of harm decreases.

The perception that there is no great risk in smoking marijuana is decreasing among youth. In 2012 66.9% of 8th graders, 50.9% of 10th graders and 44.1% of 12th graders said there was a great risk in smoking marijuana regularly. These numbers had been steadily declining over the last six years.


Is it Addictive?

Marijuana is often thought to not be addictive. However, marijuana dependence is the number 1 reason why youth in Colorado and the U.S. seek substance-abuse treatment. Youth are more likely than adults to become addicted to marijuana. About 4.5 million people in the U.S. meet clinical criteria for marijuana dependence.

THC stimulates brain cells to release the chemical dopamine, which creates a euphoric feeling and can lead to a physical addiction. Similar to tobacco withdrawal, people trying to quit marijuana report irritability, sleeping difficulties, craving, and anxiety.


----------



## goon175 (Feb 25, 2014)

A piece on the security issues that dispensaries face...

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/colorado-marijuana-shops-turn-combat-veterans-prot/ndW6j/


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 25, 2014)

goon175 said:


> A piece on the security issues that dispensaries face...
> 
> http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/colorado-marijuana-shops-turn-combat-veterans-prot/ndW6j/



Creating jobs for SOF dudes. Another positive effect.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 25, 2014)

You make it public a bunch of pipe hitters are guarding those places and no one is going to fuck around.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 25, 2014)

A bunch of pipe hitters guarding those who hit the pipe.


----------



## Centermass (Feb 25, 2014)

An enterprising Girl Scout who set up shop outside a marijuana dispensary in San Francisco sold 117 boxes of cookies in 2 hours.

Story

So much for imagination and initiative. Once the GS Council got wind of it, well, you know how that went.


----------



## Dame (Feb 26, 2014)

Centermass said:


> An enterprising Girl Scout who set up shop outside a marijuana dispensary in San Francisco sold 117 boxes of cookies in 2 hours.
> 
> Story
> 
> So much for imagination and initiative. Once the GS Council got wind of it, well, you know how that went.


There were actually a few gals in different states even. Cracks me up no end. Got the munchies? Have a cookie. Or a box. Or 12.
http://news.yahoo.com/girl-scouts-cookies-colorado-pot-shops-134107732.html


----------



## goon175 (Mar 5, 2014)

This is an amazing and balanced look at Marijuana. The only thing that I don't like about it is they portray smoking it as the main medical application when you have pills, edibles, injections, creams and transdermal patches. Despite that, I highly recommend taking the time to watch this.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 19, 2014)

Federal government okays study to see if marijuana is effective for treating veterans PTSD.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/17/ptsd-medical-marijuana-study_n_4980702.html

ETA about fucking time, as I know, and I am sure others on here know, it works amazing for this. I have seen guys with severe PTSD see dramatic improvement in quality of life from using MJ.


----------



## Scotth (Mar 19, 2014)

Is pot any worse then booze or cigs?  Probably not, I can't say I've ever heard of a head on collision being caused by someone hitting the bong to hard.   So the question should be asked if it's right for the government outlaw this substance while allowing other equally hazardous substance to be available?

There's consequences to excessive use of almost anything and I don't see the problem here.  It will save us tons of money being thrown away in the "war on drugs".  It will save the country billions a year not having people incarcerate over pot.  It will save us billions a year in court costs and lawyer fees.  You can sin tax the crap out of it.  It will create loads of jobs through out the country creating a bigger tax base.  It will take money out of the drug cartels hands and put it into legit business that will pay taxes.

The upside is so large compared to the downside.  Never used the stuff and hate smoking with a passion.  I drink so why should I throw stones at people that hit the bong?


----------



## SpitfireV (Mar 19, 2014)

This thread is like the spliff that won't extinguish LOL


----------



## Brill (Mar 19, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Federal government okays study to see if marijuana is effective for treating veterans PTSD.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/17/ptsd-medical-marijuana-study_n_4980702.html
> 
> ETA about fucking time, as I know, and I am sure others on here know, it works amazing for this. I have seen guys with severe PTSD see dramatic improvement in quality of life from using MJ.



Still no go for Feds living/working in WA and CO.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 19, 2014)

lindy said:


> Still no go for Feds living/working in WA and CO.



Obviously, okaying a study and legalization are different


----------



## Brill (Mar 19, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Obviously, okaying a study and legalization are different



Right, was referring to your comment how it helps with PTSD.  To be honest, I'm not sure if a valid prescription would even fly (read the policy but don't recall any exemptions).


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 19, 2014)

lindy said:


> Right, was referring to your comment how it helps with PTSD.  To be honest, I'm not sure if a valid prescription would even fly (read the policy but don't recall any exemptions).



Yeah the vast majority of veterans are no longer in the federal service though. So, it is good for the rest of veterans.


----------



## x SF med (Mar 20, 2014)

Scotth said:


> Is pot any worse then booze or cigs?  Probably not, *I can't say I've ever heard of a head on collision being caused by someone hitting the bong to hard.*   So the question should be asked if it's right for the government outlaw this substance while allowing other equally hazardous substance to be available?
> 
> There's consequences to excessive use of almost anything and I don't see the problem here.  It will save us tons of money being thrown away in the "war on drugs".  It will save the country billions a year not having people incarcerate over pot.  It will save us billions a year in court costs and lawyer fees.  You can sin tax the crap out of it.  It will create loads of jobs through out the country creating a bigger tax base.  It will take money out of the drug cartels hands and put it into legit business that will pay taxes.
> 
> The upside is so large compared to the downside.  Never used the stuff and hate smoking with a passion.  I drink so why should I throw stones at people that hit the bong?



A guy here in WA recently killed 4 people because he was way too stoned to drive...  and it's not the first time fatality stoner accidents have been documented here and in other states.

Personal responsibility is the key - I have 2 beers and I won't drive, I know the consequences of what could happen.  If you drink and drive you are an asshole and by law committing a crime; if you drink, drive and then damage property or injure/kill somebody you are a criminal twice over and should not be shown any leniency.


----------



## Scotth (Mar 20, 2014)

x SF med said:


> A guy here in WA recently killed 4 people because he was way too stoned to drive...  and it's not the first time fatality stoner accidents have been documented here and in other states.
> 
> Personal responsibility is the key - I have 2 beers and I won't drive, I know the consequences of what could happen.  If you drink and drive you are an asshole and by law committing a crime; if you drink, drive and then damage property or injure/kill somebody you are a criminal twice over and should not be shown any leniency.



Your statement caused me to get my Google on.  I did find one article that stated that 1 in 9 fatal car accidents involves a person testing positive for pot.  One of the interesting points was over the coarse of the decade long study they found 40% were alcohol related and that number stayed fairly constant between 1999 and 2010.  For pot it started at 4% in 1999 and climbed to 12% in 2010.

It shows my opinion on the hazards of driving using pot were dated.  Like you said though doom on you regardless of what your using if you drive impaired.

http://www.philly.com/philly/health...ot_Use_Have_Tripled_in_U_S___Study_Finds.html


----------



## policemedic (Mar 29, 2014)

Scotth said:


> Your statement caused me to get my Google on.  I did find one article that stated that 1 in 9 fatal car accidents involves a person testing positive for pot.  One of the interesting points was over the coarse of the decade long study they found 40% were alcohol related and that number stayed fairly constant between 1999 and 2010.  For pot it started at 4% in 1999 and climbed to 12% in 2010.
> 
> It shows my opinion on the hazards of driving using pot were dated.  Like you said though doom on you regardless of what your using if you drive impaired.
> 
> http://www.philly.com/philly/health...ot_Use_Have_Tripled_in_U_S___Study_Finds.html



You cannot compare the weed of yesteryear to today's product.  Hell, High Times has a strain on its cover this month with a THC content of 28.3%. 

For the record, we regularly arrest people under the influence of marijuana for DUI.


----------



## pardus (Mar 29, 2014)

policemedic said:


> You cannot compare the weed of yesteryear to today's product.  Hell, High Times has a strain on its cover this month with a *THC content of 28.3%*



WOW!  I'm not sure what the deal is here but I remember back in NZ growers/dealers used to dip weed in ________ to increase it's effect. Each to their own.


----------



## goon175 (Mar 29, 2014)

There are some strains with THC content as high as 39%


----------



## pardus (Mar 29, 2014)

goon175 said:


> There are some strains with THC content as high as 39%



Crazy, I guess people build up a tolerance to it like alcohol?


----------



## goon175 (Mar 29, 2014)

pardus said:


> Crazy, I guess people build up a tolerance to it like alcohol?



It started in the 60's when the primary use shifted to recreational. Over the course of the past 50 years, the THC has been breed up, while the CBD was breed down. It was done because the more THC, the higher you could get, the more money you could charge for it - supply and demand I guess. In the past few years many growers are starting to breed up CBD because of the medical benefits, as recreational use is no longer the sole motivation behind cannabis use. I imagine we will see the strains with high THC balance out with the strains with high CBD in the coming years, especially with federal legalization approaching.


----------



## goon175 (Apr 10, 2014)

The crime rate in colorado is decreasing since the legalization of Marijuana.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/8...ijuana-are-being-sold-in-colorado-every-month


----------



## Brill (Apr 11, 2014)

goon175 said:


> The crime rate in colorado is decreasing since the legalization of Marijuana.
> 
> http://www.policymic.com/articles/8...ijuana-are-being-sold-in-colorado-every-month



I wonder why. Weed still costs money so robbery would be unaffected. Guess they're too tired to get off the couch and put down the snacks?


----------



## goon175 (Apr 11, 2014)

lindy said:


> I wonder why. Weed still costs money so robbery would be unaffected. Guess they're too tired to get off the couch and put down the snacks?



You no longer need to get it through illicit means would be my first guess, but I'm sure there are 2nd and 3rd order effects that I am not thinking of.


----------



## DasBoot (Apr 11, 2014)

goon175 said:


> You no longer need to get it through illicit means would be my first guess, but I'm sure there are 2nd and 3rd order effects that I am not thinking of.


People aren't dealing with shady ass drug dealers who end up ripping people off or holding them up, probably a drop in gang violence/activity as people those shitbags lose their primary source of cash and thus their appeal for people to join. Now the only people dealing with those folks are the crackheads and meth addicts.


----------



## Brill (Apr 11, 2014)

goon175 said:


> You no longer need to get it through illicit means would be my first guess, but I'm sure there are 2nd and 3rd order effects that I am not thinking of.



Ah, totally forgot about the act of purchase and possession itself were illegal.


----------



## policemedic (Apr 16, 2014)

goon175 said:


> The crime rate in colorado is decreasing since the legalization of Marijuana.
> 
> http://www.policymic.com/articles/8...ijuana-are-being-sold-in-colorado-every-month


 


lindy said:


> I wonder why. Weed still costs money so robbery would be unaffected. Guess they're too tired to get off the couch and put down the snacks?


 


goon175 said:


> You no longer need to get it through illicit means would be my first guess, but I'm sure there are 2nd and 3rd order effects that I am not thinking of.


 


DasBoot said:


> People aren't dealing with shady ass drug dealers who end up ripping people off or holding them up, probably a drop in gang violence/activity as people those shitbags lose their primary source of cash and thus their appeal for people to join. Now the only people dealing with those folks are the crackheads and meth addicts.


 
Temporal association is not causation or a root cause of the very small decrease in crime rates.  This needs to be looked at longitudinally, because you could write a book on things that cause crime rates to fluctuate.


----------



## policemedic (Apr 16, 2014)

A new study just published in the Journal of Neuroscience.  Very small _n_, but interesting nonetheless.


----------



## Centermass (Apr 16, 2014)

policemedic said:


> For the record, we regularly arrest people under the influence of marijuana for DUI.



For those wondering the differences with someone DUI/DWI alcohol vs DUI/DWI marijuana, 

The drunks blow through stop signs on a regular basis. 

Stoners will wait for the stop sign to turn green.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 16, 2014)

policemedic said:


> A new study just published in the Journal of Neuroscience.  Very small _n_, but interesting nonetheless.



Yeah lots of correlation.


----------



## policemedic (Apr 17, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Yeah lots of correlation.



What correlation are you looking for?  The only correlation the authors are claiming is measurable structural abnormality in the brain that is observable in marijuana users.  It's not the first study that has identified similar findings. 

That said, the instant study is underpowered and has some other limitations.   It's not the Holy Grail of cannabis research, but it is--as far as I know--the newest study to be published on the subject in a peer-reviewed journal.


----------



## CQB (Apr 17, 2014)

eh,what was the question? 




Stoned agin


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 17, 2014)

policemedic said:


> What correlation are you looking for?  The only correlation the authors are claiming is measurable structural abnormality in the brain that is observable in marijuana users.  It's not the first study that has identified similar findings.
> 
> That said, the instant study is underpowered and has some other limitations.   It's not the Holy Grail of cannabis research, but it is--as far as I know--the newest study to be published on the subject in a peer-reviewed journal.



I'm not looking for anything, i would just like to see causation when the headline for studies is "cannabis shown to cause brain damage."


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 17, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> I'm not looking for anything, i would just like to see causation when the headline for studies is "cannabis shown to cause brain damage."


Not sure if it's helpful for this discussion, but I found this:

http://www.mainstreet.com/article/f...rijuana-just-once-week-may-cause-brain-damage
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140415181156.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090805110741.htm


----------



## Chopstick (Apr 24, 2014)

Some enterprising youngsters out in Colorado.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/23/4th-grader-sells-pot-in-northern-colorado/



> School officials in northern Colorado are asking parents to take care with their newly legal recreational marijuana, after fourth-graders were caught dealing the drug on an elementary school campus.
> John Gates, director of safety for Weld County School District 6, said Wednesday that the students involved, three 10-year-old boys and a 10-year-old girl at Greeley's Monfort Elementary School, faced tough discipline but not suspension or expulsion. He would not elaborate on their punishment.





> "This could not have happened had they secured their marijuana," Gates said of the grandparents, urging adults to take care with the drug. "Nothing good's going to come from having 10-year-olds find it, use it or take it to school."


----------



## DasBoot (Apr 24, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> Some enterprising youngsters out in Colorado.
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/23/4th-grader-sells-pot-in-northern-colorado/


"This is why we can't have nice things." 

Events like this were bound to happen and will continue to happen. I don't see it as being different than when kids smuggled booze into my high school, but I'm sure this will be cited for a few ears by people arguing against legalization.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 29, 2015)

New study that accounts for many of the variables discussed earlier in the thread(alcohol use, prior damage, age, gender) is out. They found no association between daily Marijuana use and brain abnormalities in both adults and adolescents.
Link: http://m.jneurosci.org/content/35/4/1505.abstract


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 29, 2015)

Ocoka One said:


> Whole post



That was all in this thread a couple pages back.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 29, 2015)

Then it shall be deleted.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 22, 2015)

New study is relating relationship between legalization and adolescent use of marijuana.

Actual:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(15)00217-5/abstract

Journalistic interpretation

https://news.vice.com/article/medic...smoking-pot-study-finds?utm_source=vicenewsfb

Should debunk some of the stuff posted earlier in this thread.


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 22, 2015)

More likely that medical marijuana leads to the legalization of recreational use, and maybe that would indeed increase the use in teens?


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 22, 2015)

Florida173 said:


> More likely that medical marijuana leads to the legalization of recreational use, and maybe that would indeed increase the use in teens?



But the study said.....not that, if you have more research than the quoted study post that shit up. But the consensus seems to say that when legalized in any capacity, marijuana use amongst adolescents decreases.


----------



## pardus (Jun 22, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> But the study said.....not that, if you have more research than the quoted study post that shit up. But the consensus seems to say that when legalized in any capacity, marijuana use amongst adolescents decreases.



Oh you and your "facts/science".


----------



## x SF med (Jun 22, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> But the study said.....not that, if you have more research than the quoted study post that shit up. But the consensus seems to say that when legalized in any capacity, marijuana use amongst adolescents decreases.





pardus said:


> Oh you and your "facts/science".



TLDR is always ruining emotional arguments with facts and studies...   he's like the Grinch of arguments. :wall: Friggin Killjoy.


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 23, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> But the study said.....not that, if you have more research than the quoted study post that shit up. But the consensus seems to say that when legalized in any capacity, marijuana use amongst adolescents decreases.


 
How about taking it down a notch? I asked a question. This study says specifically that what I am asking is important. The study also says that the States in which this was passed already had high adolescent use.



> Until 2011, no states allowed recreational marijuana use, but four states (Colorado, Washington, Alaska, and Oregon) and the District of Columbia have now passed laws permitting adult recreational use. Concerns exist that, at least to some extent, efforts to legalise medical marijuana are actually concealed efforts to eventually legalise recreational use. Because we examined only laws governing medical use, this report does not address the debate about legal recreational use. Research into the relationship between legalisation of recreational marijuana and adolescent marijuana use is important, but such associations cannot be inferred from the present study.


 


> Our findings, consistent with previous evidence, suggest that passage of state medical marijuana laws does not increase adolescent use of marijuana. *However*, overall, adolescent use is higher in states that ever passed such a law than in other states.


----------



## JBS (Jun 23, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> New study that accounts for many of the variables discussed earlier in the thread(alcohol use, prior damage, age, gender) is out. They found no association between daily Marijuana use and brain abnormalities in both adults and adolescents.
> Link: http://m.jneurosci.org/content/35/4/1505.abstract



Can't read the paper as you need a paid membership to view it.

How many people in the study, and how long ?


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 23, 2015)

JBS said:


> Can't read the paper as you need a paid membership to view it.
> 
> How many people in the study, and how long ?



I'm on my phone now, I used my wife's library access to read it before, 24 years of data on the subject though.


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 23, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> I'm on my phone now, I used my wife's library access to read it before, 24 years of data on the subject though.


 
Yeah.. It's a pretty impressive study.



JBS said:


> How many people in the study, and how long ?


 
1,098,270 adolescents surveyed between 1991 and 2014


----------



## JBS (Jun 24, 2015)

If a study of a million people over 24 years shows that marijuana use does not damage brain tissue, it will force many of us to abandon basically a lifetime of wrong thinking.

I would love to read the study, but at the moment, I'm still convinced using weed - especially in the younger years- does some kind of damage.   I just know way too many stoners (admittedly very high quantity of use) who seemed to have stunted their brain function in some small- but often noticeable way.  Granted, that's anecdotal, and a tiny number compared to the million people in the study, but I'd like to see the study.


If it's a "survey", I can already tell I'm going to have issues with it.


----------



## JBS (Jun 24, 2015)

OK, it IS a survey, but not the kind I was thinking.  It's a survey, as in, a review of the data (including MRI's), not a survey, as in "polling". 

I was imagining maybe some kind of multiple choice questionnaire being filled out by stoners.


----------



## SARDUDE (Jun 24, 2015)

Cigarettes/chew: Proven to cause cancer and gum disease. Cigarettes create issues for people who are just around the smoke. Legal
Alcohol: I dont think I have to say much. Liver damage, loss of mental ability, and we know all the safety stand down BS... Legal
Marijuana: weight gain, Laziness, temporary memory loss, but it kills cancer, decreases anxiety, trials with autism have shown improved ability's, dramatically decreases seizures in epileptic patients, and so on. 
I'm a libertarian for the most part so I dont like the government taking away much of anything including tobacco and alcohol. Marijuana should be legal from every stand point but the pharmaceutical company's.


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 24, 2015)

SARDUDE said:


> Cigarettes/chew: Proven to cause cancer and gum disease. Cigarettes create issues for people who are just around the smoke. Legal
> Alcohol: I dont think I have to say much. Liver damage, loss of mental ability, and we know all the safety stand down BS... Legal
> Marijuana: weight gain, Laziness, temporary memory loss, *but it kills cancer, decreases anxiety, trials with autism have shown improved ability's, dramatically decreases seizures in epileptic patients, and so on.*
> I'm a libertarian for the most part so I dont like the government taking away much of anything including tobacco and alcohol. Marijuana should be legal from every stand point but the pharmaceutical company's.


 
Sure... until you go with another study published recently... I could care less on its legalization recreationally or medically, but I don't believe its the wonder drug that everyone seems to think it is.  If it helps terminally ill people, I can't imagine that any drug should be illegal for consumption. I prefer to keep my clearance and have no experience otherwise, so I don't like to emotionally invest in this argument one way or another.



> *Study finds scant evidence that medical marijuana helps many illnesses*
> http://www.mcall.com/news/local/mc-...snt-help-many-illnesses-20150623-5-story.html


----------



## SARDUDE (Jun 24, 2015)

Yeah not a big deal but it seems like a no brainer. Of course service members shouldn't be allowed to partake.


----------



## JBS (Jun 24, 2015)

So, a question to Marijuana legalization supporters/advocates:

If marijuana is completely harmless, why don't you support service members using it?  Why shouldn't they be able to partake if they can drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes?


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 24, 2015)

JBS said:


> So, a question to Marijuana legalization supporters/advocates:
> 
> If marijuana is completely harmless, why don't you support service members using it?  Why shouldn't they be able to partake if they can drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes?



I support service members being allowed to utilize marijuana when off duty. Just the same as ETOH.


----------



## x SF med (Jun 24, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> I support service members being allowed to utilize marijuana when off duty. Just the same as ETOH.



The only issue would be metabolization in regards to testing.  Where ETOH is water soluble and the metabolization is complete in ~12h from even a major party, the fat soluble cannabanoids are retained for up to 2 weeks systemically and testing for use to prove impaired on duty may be skewed by that fact.  I am not 100% conversant with the testing protocols nor the standard deviations for systemic linger of cannabanoids as related to time of use vs. systemic load at the time of testing for intoxication.  This could cause an issue in fairness of testing for cannabis users in the military, actually an overall unfairness in testing for cannabanoid use overall.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jun 24, 2015)

x SF med said:


> The only issue would be metabolization in regards to testing.  Where ETOH is water soluble and the metabolization is complete in ~12h from even a major party, the fat soluble cannabanoids are retained for up to 2 weeks systemically and testing for use to prove impaired on duty may be skewed by that fact.  I am not 100% conversant with the testing protocols nor the standard deviations for systemic linger of cannabanoids as related to time of use vs. systemic load at the time of testing for intoxication.  This could cause an issue in fairness of testing for cannabis users in the military, actually an overall unfairness in testing for cannabanoid use overall.


From what I remember of the substance abuse course, the testing threshold for THC is/was ~50ng/mL for an initial positive, then 15ng/mL for a second confirmation.  I believe that the second test is done with a mass spectrometer, which leaves very little room for doubt.  But you're right - THC just takes too long to metabolize for testing purposes on the reg.


----------



## pardus (Jun 24, 2015)

JBS said:


> So, a question to Marijuana legalization supporters/advocates:
> 
> *If marijuana is completely harmless,* why don't you support service members using it?  Why shouldn't they be able to partake if they can drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes?



Who said that?
It is harmful when smoked, it has a higher tar content IIRC than tobacco, not to mention it's breathing smoke into the lungs which is about the most unnatural thing in the world.


----------



## JBS (Jun 25, 2015)

pardus said:


> Who said that?
> It is harmful when smoked, it has a higher tar content IIRC than tobacco, not to mention it's breathing smoke into the lungs which is about the most unnatural thing in the world.



There's quotes not 10 posts back talking about how Marijuana is actually GOOD for the health.


SARDUDE said:


> [snip]
> Marijuana: weight gain, Laziness, temporary memory loss, but it kills cancer, decreases anxiety, trials with autism have shown improved ability's, dramatically decreases seizures in epileptic patients, and so on.[snip]


You're telling me why it's bad.  I agree with you.   If I understand your position, you're saying it's bad, but should be legalized and integrated/normalized like alcohol?   I'm saying it shouldn't because it wrecks the brain.  It's not good for an already waning and weakening American society.   I said that back when the President of the United States said Marijuana was harmless.

Of course, I'll abandon my position if I see concrete evidence that it does not damage the brain.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 25, 2015)

JBS said:


> There's quotes not 10 posts back talking about how Marijuana is actually GOOD for the health.
> 
> You're telling me why it's bad.  I agree with you.   If I understand your position, you're saying it's bad, but should be legalized and integrated/normalized like alcohol?   I'm saying it shouldn't because it wrecks the brain.  It's not good for an already waning and weakening American society.   I said that back when the President of the United States said Marijuana was harmless.
> 
> Of course, I'll abandon my position if I see concrete evidence that it does not damage the brain.



http://m.jneurosci.org/content/35/4/1505.abstract

Did you not read the study posted there? some would say that you require the negative, you demand proof that something doesn't alter brain size or function, when it should be you proving it does. Show me a study that says that marijuana use by adults causes brain dysfunction. I have posted more than one that says it does not. Those haven't been refuted by anything other than your assumptions.


----------



## pardus (Jun 25, 2015)

JBS said:


> There's quotes not 10 posts back talking about how Marijuana is actually GOOD for the health.
> 
> You're telling me why it's bad.  I agree with you.   If I understand your position, you're saying it's bad, but should be legalized and integrated/normalized like alcohol?   I'm saying it shouldn't because it wrecks the brain.  It's not good for an already waning and weakening American society.   I said that back when the President of the United States said Marijuana was harmless.
> 
> Of course, I'll abandon my position if I see concrete evidence that it does not damage the brain.



Now you are twisting words and meanings around to (seemingly) support your position. He didn't say it was GOOD for your health, he showed some benefits of the drug.
I'm also not stating that it's BAD for the health,  just pointing out some harmful aspects _when the drug is smoked_.

To further make my point, alcohol has both benefits and detriments to one's health. I no of no benefits of smoking tobacco. Aspirin is a very dangerous drug, one that has obvious benefits. When I was participating in drug trials at Guy's Hospital in London we were told by the Dr in charge that Aspirin would not pass modern trials/requirements due to how dangerous it is.

Yes I do think at a minimum it should be decriminalized, better still legalized.
IMO your conditions for abandoning are unobtainable and therefore unrealistic, unless you are using that as a reason/excuse to simply not change your mind.
Every other day we see studies saying coffee/alcohol/meat/fat/certain vegetables/you name it, are good for you, then bad for you, then...
Science never stops, and as long as studies are conducted, they will show new things, both beneficial and detrimental.

To me this is more an issue of personal freedom and choice rather than health, even it it were a health argument, it falls flat when compared to it's two closet companions, alcohol and tobacco.

My .02c


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 25, 2015)

There is a section in here on Colorado's experience.


----------



## JBS (Jun 26, 2015)

pardus said:


> Now you are twisting words and meanings around to (seemingly) support your position. He didn't say it was GOOD for your health, he showed some benefits of the drug.



Whoa, I didn't twist anything.

He said it was good for your health.  Something that kills cancer and reduces siezures and improves abilities, these are all generally good things that would improve your health.  If you have cancer and I have a drug that kills cancer, that's good for your health.  I'm not playing semantics;  Bottom line, there are posts here arguing MJ isn't the menace that it's been made out to be.  That might be true and it might not be... hence the thread.



> I'm also not stating that it's BAD for the health,  just pointing out some harmful aspects _when the drug is smoked_.



Well, of course.  I think everyone knows pumping smoke into your lungs is bad, but they still do it.  And all the stoners I've ever met are advocating to SMOKE IT.  Are you saying you only approve of marijuana in a tablet (or non-smoked) form?  I'd be curious to know if all the advocates in this thread are against the smoked version.   I'm not looking to pick an argument, just curious.  Because if you're arguing to legalize the smoked version, that's the version we should probably discuss.

Here's the point: if a bunch of posters in this thread are arguing for it to be legalized as a drug, obviously they are saying it because there must be some benefit for it (it must be good for your health on some level), right?

They put Viagra on the market because it treats ED (even if it makes you go blind, or have low blood pressure).   There's a benefit.  They put Vicodin on the market because it has medicinal benefit as a pain reliever, although it's habit forming, and so on and so on.  Marijuana is being argued to be more beneficial than harmful.  It goes without saying it might have side effects.  In fact my whole position is that it's got plenty of (serious) side effects, namely brain damage.



> Yes I do think at a minimum it should be decriminalized, better still legalized.
> IMO your conditions for abandoning are unobtainable and therefore unrealistic,



Absolutely not.  There's a bunch medicines in regular and routine use that have been proven to be statistically safe to use within certain parameters.   I can buy cough suppressants and headache medicines, and indigestion, and a bunch of other stuff, and tons of it all are taken every year, and most of those doses are without incident- at least at a macro scale.   That's what clinical trials are for.  They show the drug can be taken, benefits can be obtained and the risks can be minimized, or tolerable.



> To me this is more an issue of personal freedom and choice rather than health, even it it were a health argument, it falls flat when compared to it's two closet companions, alcohol and tobacco.
> 
> My .02c



It's that last part that remains undecided - at least for me.


----------



## JBS (Jun 26, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> http://m.jneurosci.org/content/35/4/1505.abstract
> 
> Did you not read the study posted there? some would say that you require the negative, you demand proof that something doesn't alter brain size or function, when it should be you proving it does. Show me a study that says that marijuana use by adults causes brain dysfunction. I have posted more than one that says it does not. Those haven't been refuted by anything other than your assumptions.



I posted a ton of studies earlier in the thread that marijuana caused brain damage, don't you recall?

Here's the key sentence in the abstract of the study you posted:



> *No statistically significant differences were found between daily users and nonusers on volume or shape in the regions of interest. Effect sizes suggest that the failure to find differences was not due to a lack of statistical power, but rather was due to the lack of even a modest effect. In sum, the results indicate that, when carefully controlling for alcohol use, gender, age, and other variables, there is no association between marijuana use and standard volumetric or shape measurements of subcortical structures.*



So, your brain doesn't SHRINK or ENLARGE or show signs of distortion when using marijuana in a statistically measurable way.   This isn't saying it doesn't damage or interfere with brain function.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 26, 2015)

JBS said:


> I posted a ton of studies earlier in the thread that marijuana caused brain damage, don't you recall?
> 
> Here's the key sentence in the abstract of the study you posted:
> 
> ...


Your posted studies were about adolescents, who the drug would still be illegal for. I concede using drugs or alcohol as an adolescent is terrible, and should remain illegal. 

I have also shown that adolescents are not particularly more likely to use the drug due to legalization. Show me a study that says that marijuana usage harms adults.


----------



## CQB (Jun 26, 2015)

Yes, like all of the above...ah, what was the question again?


----------



## JBS (Jun 26, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> Your posted studies were about adolescents, who the drug would still be illegal for. I concede using drugs or alcohol as an adolescent is terrible, and should remain illegal.
> 
> I have also shown that adolescents are not particularly more likely to use the drug due to legalization. Show me a study that says that marijuana usage harms adults.



As I understand it, the body of evidence indicates that it's harmful to adolescents and the studies done on adults are inconclusive.   Studies on adults are scant few, but for what- 70 years- it's always been the consensus among medical professionals that the stuff will mess with your brain.   It's only the past 10 to 15 years or so that the growing chorus of pro-marijuana groups have gained enough momentum to challenge that notion.

My thinking is, fine, it's your position that weed is not harmful (or if you're @pardus , it is potentially harmful in certain forms but is a matter of personal choice), but show me where the status quo- the past 70 years  or so- has been overturned. 

Proving it isn't harmful is not proving a negative.  Proving a negative would be proving that unicorns don't exist.   Proving the drug isn't harmful is more an exercise of showing the potential benefits (if any) and weighing them against the potential (unwanted) side effects, and that they are minimal, or tolerable.   That's pretty much what is done with every other drug to one extent or another...


----------



## pardus (Jun 26, 2015)

JBS said:


> Whoa, I didn't twist anything.
> 
> He said it was good for your health.  Something that kills cancer and reduces siezures and improves abilities, these are all generally good things that would improve your health.  If you have cancer and I have a drug that kills cancer, that's good for your health.  I'm not playing semantics;  Bottom line, there are posts here arguing MJ isn't the menace that it's been made out to be.  That might be true and it might not be... hence the thread.



Show me a quote where he says it is "good for your health". If you can't show me that exact quote then you are indeed twisting what was said.



JBS said:


> Well, of course.  I think everyone knows pumping smoke into your lungs is bad, but they still do it.  And all the stoners I've ever met are advocating to SMOKE IT.  Are you saying you only approve of marijuana in a tablet (or non-smoked) form?  I'd be curious to know if all the advocates in this thread are against the smoked version.   I'm not looking to pick an argument, just curious.  Because if you're arguing to legalize the smoked version, that's the version we should probably discuss.



I approve of the drug itself being legalized. Whether that's in the form of a plant, pill, oil etc... is irrelevant, the drug itself is the issue. The method of taking that drug is not what I'm interested in. If people are fucking stupid enough to smoke it then Darwin will take care of them. 



JBS said:


> Here's the point: if a bunch of posters in this thread are arguing for it to be legalized as a drug, obviously they are saying it because there must be some benefit for it (it must be good for your health on some level), right?



It has beneficial properties, so yes it is "good for your health on some level". That is a very different thing than saying "X is good for you". Hence why I said you were twisting things.



JBS said:


> They put Viagra on the market because it treats ED (even if it makes you go blind, or have low blood pressure).   There's a benefit.  They put Vicodin on the market because it has medicinal benefit as a pain reliever, although it's habit forming, and so on and so on.  Marijuana is being argued to be more beneficial than harmful.  It goes without saying it might have side effects.  In fact my whole position is that it's got plenty of (serious) side effects, namely brain damage.



I've seen zero evidence on this thread to say MJ causes brain damage. Have I witnessed stoners in my life that appeared fucked up due to pot? Yup.
Like I said earlier, any drug has good and bad aspects to it. That is life in the medical world, weigh the benefits vs the ill effects and make a decision as to prescribing drug X and move forward.





JBS said:


> Absolutely not.  There's a bunch medicines in regular and routine use that have been proven to be statistically safe to use within certain parameters.   I can buy cough suppressants and headache medicines, and indigestion, and a bunch of other stuff, and tons of it all are taken every year, and most of those doses are without incident- at least at a macro scale.   That's what clinical trials are for.  They show the drug can be taken, benefits can be obtained and the risks can be minimized, or tolerable.



So what's your problem with it being prescribed then? Or do you not have a problem with it being prescribed?



JBS said:


> It's that last part that remains undecided - at least for me.



Understood.


----------



## SARDUDE (Jun 26, 2015)

look at the evolution of science in the past 15 years... Given the original reason the drug was outlawed I would say that the last 10 years of study are the most relevant. 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron.html

Also youre a racist and I am offended... Just kidding seemed appropriate for the times lol.


----------



## pardus (Jun 26, 2015)

JBS said:


> As I understand it, the body of evidence indicates that it's harmful to adolescents and the studies done on adults are inconclusive.   Studies on adults are scant few, but for what- 70 years- it's always been the consensus among medical professionals that the stuff will mess with your brain.   It's only the past 10 to 15 years or so that the growing chorus of pro-marijuana groups have gained enough momentum to challenge that notion.
> 
> My thinking is, fine, it's your position that weed is not harmful (or if you're @pardus , it is potentially harmful in certain forms but is a matter of personal choice), but show me where the status quo- the past 70 years  or so- has been overturned.
> 
> .



Considering there has been zero or close to zero clinical testing of the drug (to my knowledge), due to it's illegality, how is it that dr's have said it's harmful for the last 70 yrs? Because of govt propaganda? Where is their evidence? Look at how/why the drug was banned in the first place. Racist motivations, and you should know by now that I generally scoff at such statements, but it seems to be true in this case. I'm open to being completely wrong on that though. But I do know that the propaganda of the drug turning people into psychotics etc... is complete bullshit.


----------



## JBS (Jun 27, 2015)

pardus said:


> It has beneficial properties, so yes it is "good for your health on some level". That is a very different thing than saying "X is good for you". Hence why I said you were twisting things.



Brother, the post I'm referring to insinuates that marijuana is good for the health (and for all I know it very well might prove to be).  I really don't know what you're talking about.



> [_snip_]Marijuana: weight gain, Laziness, temporary memory loss, *but it kills cancer, decreases anxiety, trials with autism have shown improved ability's, dramatically decreases seizures in epileptic patients, and so on.*[snip]





pardus said:


> Considering there has been zero or close to zero clinical testing of the drug (to my knowledge), due to it's illegality, how is it that dr's have said it's harmful for the last 70 yrs? Because of govt propaganda? Where is their evidence? Look at how/why the drug was banned in the first place. Racist motivations, and you should know by now that I generally scoff at such statements, but it seems to be true in this case. I'm open to being completely wrong on that though. But I do know that the propaganda of the drug turning people into psychotics etc... is complete bullshit.



I have seen this (racist motivations, propoganda, etc), but I've also seen many, many studies that show/suggest marijuana wrecks the brain during developmental phases of youth.   I'll go dig them up.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 27, 2015)

JBS said:


> Brother, the post I'm referring to insinuates that marijuana is good for the health (and for all I know it very well might prove to be).  I really don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All kinds of things wreck brain development during youth. Caffeine, alcohol, any kind of narcotics. Hence why with the exception of caffeine they are illegal for people with developing brains. Marijuana will never be legal for people with developing brains.


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 27, 2015)

Although we are now determining that the brain never truly stops developing, but I will concede that there are plenty of people that have stopped theirs.


----------



## JBS (Jun 27, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> All kinds of things wreck brain development during youth. Caffeine, alcohol, any kind of narcotics. Hence why with the exception of caffeine they are illegal for people with developing brains. Marijuana will never be legal for people with developing brains.



I understand but @pardus is acting like no such evidence exists.

Also, that's not my whole argument.  If something - a chemical compound- is harmful to an organism at one point in its development or life cycle, it's not unreasonable to hold out the expectation that it will likely be harmful to the organism at other points of its life cycle.   The way the argument is being put forward it seems like marijuana advocates want to believe it's harmless despite the lack of science showing it is safe.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 27, 2015)

JBS said:


> I understand but @pardus is acting like no such evidence exists.
> 
> Also, that's not my whole argument.  If something - a chemical compound- is harmful to an organism at one point in its development or life cycle, it's not unreasonable to hold out the expectation that it will likely be harmful to the organism at other points of its life cycle.   The way the argument is being put forward it seems like marijuana advocates want to believe it's harmless despite the lack of science showing it is safe.



Except that it is. There are drugs that are catastrophic to a developing fetus that later in life are totally safe. 100%. It is so common in fact that we have a whole category of drug called teratogenic. I'm going to go out on a limb and say I have forgotten more about chemistry, biology, and physiology than all but maybe 2 members on this board have ever learned. I understand that substances are dangerous based on the phase of life. But saying something that millions of people are currently using, is somehow super dangerous, while allowing equally or more dangerous chemicals l(ETOH, nicotine, caffeine, but with no age limit)to be ingested by anyone based on their age is fucking absurd. Alcohol can cause someone to literally have a dissociative episode, in relatively small amounts less than 10 liquid ounces. Yet again it is totally legal, so legal that I have to watch advertisements with my young family members on TV. That is insane. Meanwhile if an adult wants to take a bong rip they cannot due to people who don't understand what THC does to the body, refuse to listen to research that has been conducted, while sitting at home and sipping their beers.


----------



## Six-Two (Jun 29, 2015)

JBS said:


> I understand but @pardus is acting like no such evidence exists.
> 
> Also, that's not my whole argument.  If something - a chemical compound- is harmful to an organism at one point in its development or life cycle, it's not unreasonable to hold out the expectation that it will likely be harmful to the organism at other points of its life cycle.   The way the argument is being put forward it seems like marijuana advocates want to believe it's harmless despite the lack of science showing it is safe.





TLDR20 said:


> Except that it is. There are drugs that are catastrophic to a developing fetus that later in life are totally safe. 100%. It is so common in fact that we have a whole category of drug called teratogenic. I'm going to go out on a limb and say I have forgotten more about chemistry, biology, and physiology than all but maybe 2 members on this board have ever learned. I understand that substances are dangerous based on the phase of life. But saying something that millions of people are currently using, is somehow super dangerous, while allowing equally or more dangerous chemicals l(ETOH, nicotine, caffeine, but with no age limit)to be ingested by anyone based on their age is fucking absurd. Alcohol can cause someone to literally have a dissociative episode, in relatively small amounts less than 10 liquid ounces. Yet again it is totally legal, so legal that I have to watch advertisements with my young family members on TV. That is insane. Meanwhile if an adult wants to take a bong rip they cannot due to people who don't understand what THC does to the body, refuse to listen to research that has been conducted, while sitting at home and sipping their beers.



I hope I'm not speaking out of turn, but @JBS, it sounds like you're mixing two debates together a little bit. I certainly don't presume to speak for them, but from what I'm reading it seems like you're sorta trying to pigeonhole @TLDR20 and @pardus into both advocating recreational use for adults and its general, as opposed to medicinal, application and availability to minors to cover a lack of provided facts. They've supported their arguments with numerous citations for arguments that are so part of our cultural zeitgeist as to be common sense. 

I'm not a fan of pot, at all, but when I read things like the story of Charlotte Figi, it's hard for me to deny that it has its merits. Similarly, I don't really give two shits if you'd like to light up a doob instead of drinking a Bud Light or two (_something-something-"smoking bud" pun_). Again, I don't mean to speak for the guys, but supporting legalization for adults to use as they would a shot of whisky and supporting the medically-controlled applications of CBD-heavy, nearly-THC-free strains to minors (by doctors) aren't mutually exclusive notions, and they're certainly not the same as "legalize it universally without any restrictions."

Nobody is saying "legalize weed, and while we're at let's let Timmy smoke all the pot he wants;" they're saying "legalize it for adults, because seriously, who gives a shit," and, separately, "lend it some credibility in the medical fields, which is the only justifiable use by a minor." They're separate debates with separate bodies of supporting evidence required for them, and while Marijuana may be harmful to the developing brain (which is now debatable thanks to strains that favor CBD to THC), I'm sure Charlotte's parents are pretty happy their kid's 300 seizures a week have stopped. In addition to the notion that it has medical benefits, its recreational use by adults who would otherwise use legal vices like booze and cigarettes has shown itself to be no more (actually way less) harmful than the aforementioned.

Just my two cents.

-62


----------



## pardus (Jun 29, 2015)

JBS said:


> Brother, the post I'm referring to insinuates that marijuana is good for the health (and for all I know it very well might prove to be).  I really don't know what you're talking about.



Insinuates? I care about what was actually said, not what you read between the lines.

I don't know why you aren't grasping what I'm saying, that something which has beneficial properties can also have detrimental properties.
I feel I've explained it clearly in post #211

You saying that this is a black and white issue of whether MJ is good or bad for a person, is simply the wrong way to look at the issue. 
Yes the science is not in yet, and there will probably be studies showing good and bad properties of MJ for humans until long after you and I are dead.



JBS said:


> I have seen this (racist motivations, propoganda, etc), but I've also seen many, many studies that show/suggest marijuana wrecks the brain during developmental phases of youth.   I'll go dig them up.



Please do.



JBS said:


> I understand but @pardus is acting like no such evidence exists.



Where did I say that? Don't put words in my mouth.



JBS said:


> Also, that's not my whole argument.  If something - a chemical compound- is harmful to an organism at one point in its development or life cycle, it's not unreasonable to hold out the expectation that it will likely be harmful to the organism at other points of its life cycle.   The way the argument is being put forward it seems like marijuana advocates want to believe it's harmless despite the lack of science showing it is safe.



Who said it's safe?


----------

