The Marijuana Debate

[SARDUDE]

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]

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]

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

 

[JBS]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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]

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]

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]

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

 

[JBS]

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]

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]

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:



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.

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]

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

 

[JBS]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

Understood.

 

[SARDUDE]

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]

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.