TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,237
Last edited:
The Marijuana Debate
- Thread starter TLDR20
- Start date
Brill
SOF Support
I can just imagine his technical explanation of "Dude, where's my car?"
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,237
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
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.
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.
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...
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...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 1,241
And all this time I thought weed was cast upon us by the red menace as an attempt to destroy America!
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:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/marijuana
D
Deleted member 2517
Guest
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.
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.
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.
dirtmover
Verified Military
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
Verified Military
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.
What I am getting at is right now there is no way to guarantee that there isn't cartel drugs in the mix.
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.
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.
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.
I'm not defending OC, but the reality is that it is everywhere.
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?
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
http://www.law360.com/articles/500322/legal-pot-leaves-product-liability-attys-dazed-confused
Whoa, check it out. Look at Illinois.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-medical-marijuana-rules-met-20140122,0,1530419.story
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-medical-marijuana-rules-met-20140122,0,1530419.story
