Happy 4:20!

[ShelbyJK500]

One thing about the research studies, they always seem to support the views of those paying for them.

^...this = skepticism

Comparing MJ to alcohol just because they are both drugs is like saying aspirin is the same as oxycontin because they are both pain killing pills, flat out ignorant, regardless of studies, education, whos paying, or how old you are, its simply just not based in reality

Not sure who is comparing the two simply because they are both drugs?? In general terms, my commentary has started to lean toward looking at the driving aspect, and how BOTH create levels of impairment. Driving is a simple common denominator for looking at impairment, whether it's MJ, alcohol, oxy, meth, heroin...etc, ect. I'm not sure if this was directed at me or not, but reading the thread I don't think anyone is comparing the two out of "ignorance". The REALITY in my commentary is they both factually and empirically create impairment.

I dont care how much rhetoric the academy spoon fed all the recruits, or how good the cool aid tasted.

So is this a dig toward law enforcement or just the other side of the "debate"? (or both??) I'm confused.

 

[Wicked Color]

Anybody who has done both will tell you they are not comparable, you cant OD on weed, you just get stoned!
Ever seen anybody with weed poisoning?
Ever seen anybody passed out and cannot be revived off weed?
How about fetal weed syndrome?
Toxic shock?
Allergies?
Honestly, its a dig at anybody who thinks they have the right to tell others how to live.
I am not saying people should drive on drugs of any kind, but the only line that can be drawn between the two is that they are both drugs that create SOME level of impairment.

 

[rangerbobb]

Take a look at marinol -it's a pharmaceutical, FDA approved medication and the active component is THC. Not something that's widely publicized, but it IS available by prescription throughout the US...yes, even in states without MMJ laws. Marinol is currently utilized to treat nausea and emesis, but is also undergoing research for the treatment of Alzheimer's patients...and no, it's not just used in patients with dementia that forget to eat Although it's ability to demonstrate long-term reversal of the symptoms is doubtful, there is strong evidence indicating that it slows the progression of the illness AND improves cognition in those patients at low doses.

Dronabinol is a poor antiemetic agent. It is really only used as a breakthrough agent if the patient receiving chemotherapy hasn't responded to conventional antiemetic agents.

As for using it in dementia, I don't foresee it being used in the future. Current therapies can only slow the progression of the disease, there is no cure for dementia. Current therapy is cholinesterase inhibitors in mild and moderate (one is approved for all stages) or memantine in severe dementia. Dronabinol would need a head-to-head RCT vs donepezil. Donepezil is the current, best option for dementia. Dronabinol is also a Schedule III controlled substance. This aspect alone would be a large limitation compared to current therapy.

For marijuana, it might be efficacious because it contains many more cannabinoids than THC alone; however, it would need a lot more data to be used for dementia. The data would need to come from double-blind, RCTs, which someone has to pay for and they aren't cheap on the scale needed to cause a change in practice.

 

[that0neguy1126]

you cant OD on weed, you just get stoned!

Thomas Geller, MD, Associate Professor of Child Neurology at the Saint Louis University Health Sciences Center, et al., wrote in their article "Cerebellar Infarction in Adolescent Males Associated with Acute Marijuana Use," published in Pediatrics in Apr. 2004:
"Each of the 3 cannabis-associated cases of cerebellar infarction was confirmed by biopsy (1 case) or necropsy (2 cases)... Brainstem compromise caused by cerebellar and cerebral edema led to death in the 2 fatal cases."

Liliana Bachs, MD, Senior Medical Officer at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, et al., wrote in their article "Acute Cardiovascular Fatalities Following Cannabis Use," published by Forensic Science International in 2001:
"Cannabis is generally considered to be a drug with very low toxicity. In this paper, we report six cases where recent cannabis intake was associated with sudden and unexpected death. An acute cardiovascular event was the probable cause of death. In all cases, cannabis intake was documented by blood analysis."

Honestly, its a dig at anybody who thinks they have the right to tell others how to live.

Using this logic, should we make every other drug legal as well? Why do we even bother to have any laws then?

I could really care less about the whole debate one way or the other. It is funny how much information is out there on the subject. Like Jamie said, the studies always promote who is paying for them. Hence why there are so many duplicate studies that supposedly produce different results.

In the end, I doubt MJ is getting legalized any time soon for the sole reason is the supporting side is so much more unprepared than those who oppose it. It has nothing at all to do with if it is safe or not, it has to do with who can make a profit from it. Even with taxation, the net increase in money is so slim that its almost a wash, so why should anyone bother to support these bills?

 

[hurrafreak]

Here's a question I have. Does anybody stop to think wether or not the government will close down the people who are growing weed, EVEN if they legalize it? What I mean is, I NEVER hear of any shops growing tobacco for the market? I think you have to have a special license to grow tobacco, and they must be specialized as again, I've NEVER heard of anybody growing tobacco to sell into the market? I don't really believe that, even if the government legalizes it, that they will just let all of these shops continue to grow and sell weed? I don't know though haha.

 

[Zooid]

"Sugar is generally considered to be a sweetener with very low toxicity. In this paper, we report six cases where recent sugar intake was associated with sudden and unexpected death. An acute cardiovascular event was the probable cause of death. In all cases, sugar intake was documented by blood analysis."


Sorry, I had to be a smart ***
My problem with keeping marijuana illegal is the hypocrisy of the legislatures that create these laws. The cannabis lobby doesn't have as much money as the tobacco or alcohol lobby, so politicians will not legalize it. Tobacco and alcohol are far more dangerous drugs in terms of hurting innocent bystanders and yet the politicians maintain the legal status of those drugs.

 

[that0neguy1126]

Here's a question I have. Does anybody stop to think wether or not the government will close down the people who are growing weed, EVEN if they legalize it? What I mean is, I NEVER hear of any shops growing tobacco for the market? I think you have to have a special license to grow tobacco, and they must be specialized as again, I've NEVER heard of anybody growing tobacco to sell into the market? I don't really believe that, even if the government legalizes it, that they will just let all of these shops continue to grow and sell weed? I don't know though haha.

I think something like 90% of the shops that opened shortly after MMJ was legalized went out of business already. Would be interesting if someone could find the real number.

 

[that0neguy1126]

The cannabis lobby doesn't have as much money as the tobacco or alcohol lobby, so politicians will not legalize it. Tobacco and alcohol are far more dangerous drugs in terms of hurting innocent bystanders and yet the politicians maintain the legal status of those drugs.

ding ding! we have a winner!

 

[KhensuRa]

Anyone ever watch reefer madness? it's an old propaganda film. Great stuff...

 

[spstimie]

Using this logic, should we make every other drug legal as well? Why do we even bother to have any laws then?

Yes, legalize everything, tax it, take the money from the cartels. Stop wasting billions on an war that can't be won. If a few junkies smack themselves out of existence...good. We need to stop making laws that prohibit the laws of nature from doing their job. If you don't buckle up your children or teach them not to do drugs, you get what you deserve.

Here's a question I have. Does anybody stop to think wether or not the government will close down the people who are growing weed, EVEN if they legalize it? What I mean is, I NEVER hear of any shops growing tobacco for the market? I think you have to have a special license to grow tobacco, and they must be specialized as again, I've NEVER heard of anybody growing tobacco to sell into the market? I don't really believe that, even if the government legalizes it, that they will just let all of these shops continue to grow and sell weed? I don't know though haha.

Its called the ATF and yes you do need special licensing. Try growing tobacco or distilling liquor.If you do you better keep it quiet.

 

[FoCoAquarist]

Yes, legalize everything, tax it, take the money from the cartels. Stop wasting billions on an war that can't be won. If a few junkies smack themselves out of existence...good. We need to stop making laws that prohibit the laws of nature from doing their job. If you don't buckle up your children or teach them not to do drugs, you get what you deserve.

+1000000! Drug use is a public health issue, not a criminal justice one. We have too many people in prison to sustain this. We have around 3% of the worlds population and 25% of the worlds prison population. When 1 in 100 American adults are in prison something needs to change. Portugal decriminalized all drugs about 10 years ago and it was a success with drug use declining. If you have the time check this video out...it's a debate with John Walters the former drug czar. http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2011/nov/21/video_former_drug_czar_gets_dest

 

[ShelbyJK500]

Anybody who has done both will tell you they are not comparable, you cant OD on weed, you just get stoned! False
Ever seen anybody with weed poisoning? Yup, including many children.
Ever seen anybody passed out and cannot be revived off weed? Yup
Toxic shock? Yup
Allergies? Yup (know several close friends who had horrible reactions first use)

Honestly, its a dig at anybody who thinks they have the right to tell others how to live. It is not only society's right, but responsibility...not necessarily to tell people how to live, but how NOT to live. This country and the freedom it brought was not based on anarchy.
I am not saying people should drive on drugs of any kind, but the only line that can be drawn between the two is that they are both drugs that create SOME level of impairment. If you told someone NOT to drive on a drug, would that not be telling them how to live??

This slippery slope leads to anarchist type of society. Hence, the "legalize all drugs" commentary that is beginning.

 

[Zooid]

"This country and the freedom it brought was not based on anarchy."

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding how legalizing some drugs is anarchy. Seems to me that people have voted to legalize marijuana in some states only to have it summarily rejected by a select group of people who call themselves judges or justices. That sounds like an oligarchy to me. When judges or justices strike down laws created by legislatures without having a constitutional reason, they are trying to garner power that the Constitution didn't give them. Most cases that have gone to court have been struck down due to minor procedural problems that are overlooked in other cases. I'm not for anarchy, I'm for Constitutionalism, which it seems is malleable for some people. If someone says that the Constitution is a "living document", that says to me that they don't believe in the original intent of the Constitution. There is a process, a very long and difficult process, to change the Constitution but instead of trying to change it through the amendment process, some judges/justices want to go into contortions to try and "interpret" the words in the Constitution to fit their political ideals.

oops.....wrong soapbox....sorry folks

 

[ShelbyJK500]

Tobacco and alcohol are far more dangerous drugs in terms of hurting innocent bystanders and yet the politicians maintain the legal status of those drugs.

Just curious, how does tobacco hurt innocent bystanders??

Yes, legalize everything, tax it, take the money from the cartels. Stop wasting billions on an war that can't be won. If a few junkies smack themselves out of existence...good. We need to stop making laws that prohibit the laws of nature from doing their job. If you don't buckle up your children or teach them not to do drugs, you get what you deserve.

I can't begin to start a commentary on "legalizing everything". However, one thing I can't get past is this. In the process of "junkies smacking themselves out of existence"...how many innocent people will be hurt or killed in the process? What is the acceptable amount of collateral damage in this scenario??

+1000000! Drug use is a public health issue, not a criminal justice one. We have too many people in prison to sustain this. We have around 3% of the worlds population and 25% of the worlds prison population. When 1 in 100 American adults are in prison something needs to change. Portugal decriminalized all drugs about 10 years ago and it was a success with drug use declining. If you have the time check this video out...it's a debate with John Walters the former drug czar. http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2011/nov/21/video_former_drug_czar_gets_dest

Thanks for the link. Very interesting debate, I watched just into the Q&A portion. Obviously having some bias toward one side, I still see completely irrational thinking and debating coming from a legalization side. One compelling argument is, that in country's that have de-criminalized drugs (all or in part), they have gone BACK to criminalizing.

The truly compelling argument, and where the rubber meets the road, is in the addiction/pathology side of it. John Walter's hit the nail on the head with many arguments. Why, for the love of all that is good would someone want to legalize and make available to anyone, drugs like meth, cocaine and heroin? The drug war and law enforcement goals are to limit supply and to attempt to stop the spread/distribution of the substances. This is done in great effort to make it DIFFICULT for just anyone to obtain the substances. Think about all the youth out there from junior high to college age, that will "try" these substances, that were not previously available to them with ease. They will try them out of curiosity, out of boredom, out of spite (rebellion), out of peer pressure, out of ignorance, out of AVAILABILITY. Most of us should know by now that a single use of narcotics like meth and heroin have highly addictive capabilities, and once the addiction begins, the cycle begins.

By "cycle" I mean the crimes associated with the addiction. ANYONE in law enforcement can tell you there is a definitive and distinct connection to crimes associated with the addiction, that are not drug crimes. Property crimes (auto thefts, auto burglaries, home burglaries, shoplifting, frauds, forgeries, etc) are a direct result of addicts committing them out of their self destructive need for their habit, and their need to find money to fund it. Then it spins into persons related crimes (robberies, assaults, homicides) out of pure drug induced/"fogged" behavior.

My skin crawled with the ACLU card carrying speaker who stated the "war on drugs" was a racial policy. The argument behind that is some of the most ludicrous and offensive rhetoric I've ever heard. The reason why certain demographics are impacted more is simply a cause and effect. Yes, when upper middle class white (or any race) people obtain the addiction to hard drugs, they don't typically have to resort to other crimes against people or property. Reason...because they have the money to get their next "score". Even within that realm, most end up stealing from their families, friends and employers if they run out of money. HOWEVER, in the poor communities which are just factually occupied by certain demographics, those in that scenario do not have the money to feed their addiction. Consequence...they commit crimes against property and persons to feed the habit. Because of this, many times they become repeat or violent offenders and as such, end up striking themselves out with too many repeat crimes. (hence imprisonment) It's not a racial issue, it's an ADDICTION ISSUE.

If there is ANY racial target to look at in that whole rhetoric it would be that people with money, many times have the ability to obtain good legal representation, which can keep them from imprisonment when they ultimately do get caught. This skews the numbers so-to-speak, so that this speaker can say that white people don't ever get caught. Absurd. OJ got caught, but he had money. Many African American's with money get caught, but aren't imprisoned. Look at professional athletes. It's a matter of money when it comes to incarceration many times...not the "war on drug's" policies. Just because certain demographics have the money to keep them from being imprisoned, or from the need to continually commit repeat crimes against persons/property for their habit, does not mean the laws/policies are racist!?!?

People with no money rely on plea deals and public defenders. Well, there is only so many plea deals you get until your second chances run out and you're ultimately imprisoned. So the target here shouldn't be "drug war policies" it should be judicial/court reform. I COMPLETELY believe in drug courts and feel that more money should be tasked toward these courts. You don't give up the good fight simply because costs seem prohibitive, as the one speaker suggests. I don't believe you look at the welfare of society and those we desire to protect as something that should be looked at like a business decision. That's not what we're built upon in this country, morally and fundamentally.

 

[ShelbyJK500]

"This country and the freedom it brought was not based on anarchy."

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding how legalizing some drugs is anarchy. Seems to me that people have voted to legalize marijuana in some states only to have it summarily rejected by a select group of people who call themselves judges or justices. That sounds like an oligarchy to me. When judges or justices strike down laws created by legislatures without having a constitutional reason, they are trying to garner power that the Constitution didn't give them. Most cases that have gone to court have been struck down due to minor procedural problems that are overlooked in other cases. I'm not for anarchy, I'm for Constitutionalism, which it seems is malleable for some people. If someone says that the Constitution is a "living document", that says to me that they don't believe in the original intent of the Constitution. There is a process, a very long and difficult process, to change the Constitution but instead of trying to change it through the amendment process, some judges/justices want to go into contortions to try and "interpret" the words in the Constitution to fit their political ideals.

oops.....wrong soapbox....sorry folks

My comment was directed toward the idea of..."Honestly, its a dig at anybody who thinks they have the right to tell others how to live." To me this is where the slippery slope to anarchist ideas begin. If none of us think we/society have a right/obligation to hold others accountable in certain ways they "live"....then most (all for some) laws should not exist.

Sorry for the confusion, my specific comment that you are looking at was based on those "ideas" not on anything specific, until complete legalization of all drugs came up.

 

[Zooid]

Second hand smoke hurts bystanders......according to some studies.....I don't know whether to believe them or not.

btw, Don't mind any of my comments.....I just like railing against the government as it has been since Teddy Roosevelt LOL
And I really do love this country I've been to a bunch of different countries and the only one that I thought had anything
to brag about over the US was Malaysia. Singapore is gorgeous....the subway system had absolutely no grafitti. I guess
people just don't want to be caned

 

[Zooid]

Oh and, I wouldn't want to legalize everything either because meth heads and crack heads don't need free access to drugs that
can cause them to kill other people just to get money for their fix. But if those drugs are bad, and they are in my opinion, WHY
in the name of all that is good, do they still allow alcohol and cigarettes to be legal? Each drug should be analyzed and not lumped
into the same group. If they prove that marijuana is worse than alcohol and cigarettes then I'd be willing to recalibrate my thoughts,
but I seriously think it's a money and power issue, not an issue of the government trying to save us from ourselves.

 

[ShelbyJK500]

Second hand smoke hurts bystanders......according to some studies.....I don't know whether to believe them or not.

btw, Don't mind any of my comments.....I just like railing against the government as it has been since Teddy Roosevelt LOL
And I really do love this country I've been to a bunch of different countries and the only one that I thought had anything
to brag about over the US was Malaysia. Singapore is gorgeous....the subway system had absolutely no grafitti. I guess
people just don't want to be caned

LOL...I completely understand and had to laugh at the Singapore comment. Societies that cut off limbs as recently as a decade ago for crimes like theft, just don't have a theft problem.

Oh, and I hate smoking (tobacco). Never have, and never will. I HATE second hand smoke as well. That said, I'm at least of the belief that tobacco as a drug can be destructive, but mostly only to oneself. There are no concerns in my mind of someone smoking a cigarette prior to or while driving a vehicle, hoping they don't cross the double yellow and end my life or someone else's in an instant. In this lies my belief that no "responsibility" is required to partake. That is just my take on it as a "drug" for this conversation.

I'm a patriot through to the end (at least in what this country originally was and stood for). I'm more on the constitutional side than anything and very conservative (believe it or not). My idealistic naivety is many times drowned by the realism that I'm faced with on a daily basis. However, I choose not to give up hope and do not wish to lay down in any fight or to any challenge. I believe in change and reform that can bring about true results. I just don't believe that resides in legalizing things which have been and should be illegal. (IMHO) This is the challenge to our government/society. Are we willing to do what it takes to overcome the challenge, or stick to status quo's while just throwing money at an issue, without really getting our hands dirty?

 

[Zooid]

I agree with most of what you said.....and believe it or not.....I consider myself a conservative too...mostly on the fiscal side....I'm more libertarian on the social side.
One question, I agree that people should not be driving after smoking pot, but if you don't want to make it legal to smoke even if you don't drive, should we also make
alcohol illegal again? It didn't work the first time, I don't think it would work now either. We should enforce anti-pot DRIVING laws. I believe you can be cited for DWAI
and it can be just as effective as a DWI or DUI for the offenders.

 

[ShelbyJK500]

Oh and, I wouldn't want to legalize everything either because meth heads and crack heads don't need free access to drugs that
can cause them to kill other people just to get money for their fix. But if those drugs are bad, and they are in my opinion, WHY
in the name of all that is good, do they still allow alcohol and cigarettes to be legal? Each drug should be analyzed and not lumped
into the same group. If they prove that marijuana is worse than alcohol and cigarettes then I'd be willing to recalibrate my thoughts,
but I seriously think it's a money and power issue, not an issue of the government trying to save us from ourselves.

I can very much appreciate this sentiment. I rarely drink either. I choose, as best I can, to steer clear of substances which can grab hold of me. Heck, I LOVE chew tobacco. I know for a fact that I would get addicted to it...so I stay as far away as I can.

I'm just not sure where cigarettes can be considered far worse/dangerous/"bad" than MJ?? My baseline is that MJ is worse than tobacco by the sheer fact that it impairs motor functions and that can directly create victims.

Sadly I can tell you that I have seen TONS of victims of this so-called "victimless" substance, first hand. That is where the rubber meets the road for me. Not in statistics, studies and rhetoric. First hand experiences with overdosed children that have ingested MJ edibles/sodas, child neglect directly related to MJ use to the point of injury/death, fatal car accidents, etc etc. Of course, all of these other substances (excluding tobacco use) mentioned can and have resulted in the same types of outcomes. That is why I lump MJ in with the rest and can't see legalization as an answer. I'm all for medicinal uses of MJ if legitimate, but not at the extent and the farce that it has become. To me if it was ever to be seen as a legitimate medicinal medicine, it would be prescribed by actual primary care type physicians. (Which it has been for years)