# California Proposition 19 (Legalization of Marijuana)



## Ethan Rosen (Oct 25, 2010)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19_(2010)

I'm just curious about what everyone thinks of this, and more importantly, what Californians of legal voting age plan to do about it. Personally I think that the passing of this measure should help to curb violence in both Mexico and US gang violence, open up our jail cells to people who have committed real crimes, keep marijuana and hard drugs out of the hands of children and young teens, and most importantly, stop sending innocent people to jail.


----------



## flan (Oct 25, 2010)

Ethan Rosen said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19_(2010)
> 
> I'm just curious about what everyone thinks of this, and more importantly, what Californians of legal voting age plan to do about it. Personally I think that the passing of this measure should help to curb violence in both Mexico and US gang violence, open up our jail cells to people who have committed real crimes, keep marijuana and hard drugs out of the hands of children and young teens, and most importantly, stop sending innocent people to jail.


 
Amen


----------



## oprah62 (Oct 25, 2010)

How do you think it'll affect the black market?


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Oct 25, 2010)

oprah62 said:


> How do you think it'll affect the black market?


 
In the long term, marijuana sales in CA will just about entirely be through legally distributed means. This also keeps kids away from the sketchy drug dealers that will push harder drugs onto them. In the long term, this should be pretty devastating to the black markets, although there will always be people who want harder drugs, and dealers to supply them.


----------



## EVH (Oct 25, 2010)

But it is still bad for you...


----------



## Weston (Oct 25, 2010)

EVH said:


> But it is still bad for you...


 
So is candy.


----------



## CharlesOBlack (Oct 25, 2010)

EVH said:


> But it is still bad for you...


 


Weston said:


> So is candy.


 
So is everything in excess.


----------



## EVH (Oct 25, 2010)

Does candy quadruple your chance of a heart-attack?


----------



## Weston (Oct 25, 2010)

EVH said:


> Does candy quadruple your chance of a heart-attack?


 
If you eat a lot and get fat it will.
Does marijuana make you fat?


----------



## EVH (Oct 25, 2010)

If you smoke too much which can make you hungry, which means that you will eat, which then means that if you smoke too much then eat too much then you can get fat.

I also highly doubt that eating a lot of candy will give you a heart-attack, more like diabeetus.


----------



## Weston (Oct 25, 2010)

EVH said:


> If you smoke too much which can make you hungry, which means that you will eat, which then means that if you smoke too much then eat too much then you can get fat.
> 
> I also highly doubt that eating a lot of candy will give you a heart-attack, more like diabeetus.


If you have type 2 diabetes, you're pretty high risk for a heart attack.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Oct 25, 2010)

EVH said:


> Does candy quadruple your chance of a heart-attack?


 

Does smoking cannabis?


----------



## EVH (Oct 25, 2010)

Weston said:


> If you have type 2 diabetes, you're pretty high risk for a heart attack.


 
Yes, if you have terrible control over your blood sugar for a long period of time. If your diabeetus is managed well enough then a chance for increased risk of a heart attack is minute.


----------



## EVH (Oct 25, 2010)

Cannabis is kind of like marijuana increased risk for heart attack, not as serious as nicotine or alcohol. But no studies have proven it to be bad or good.

My last post.


----------



## riffz (Oct 25, 2010)

EVH said:


> Cannabis is kind of like marijuana increased risk for heart attack, not as serious as nicotine or alcohol. But no studies have proven it to be bad or good.
> 
> My last post.


 
The burden is on you, so I guess you lose.

Also, I've conducted plenty of studies with my friends. The findings were increased appreciation for small things in life and open conversation.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Oct 25, 2010)

EVH said:


> Cannabis is kind of like marijuana increased risk for heart attack, not as serious as nicotine or alcohol. But no studies have proven it to be bad or good.
> 
> My last post.



I don't understand what you're saying, however before you seemed to imply that the use of marijuana increased heart attack risks by 400%. Care to back that up?


----------



## hawkmp4 (Oct 25, 2010)

Ethan Rosen said:


> I don't understand what you're saying, however before you seemed to imply that the use of marijuana increased heart attack risks by 400%. Care to back that up?


 
Didn't you know? Weed just makes you drop dead. Spontaneous human DEATH.

EDIT:
More seriously, I'm all for it. I'm just curious what effects it will have on black market not only in CA but places where it's still illegal (CO, for example, where a lot of our weed comes from CA so it seems).


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 25, 2010)

I stand by the stance that I took in the last thread.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Oct 25, 2010)

Hey hey, hey, hey


Kirjava said:


> SMOKE WEED EVERYDAY


----------



## EVH (Oct 25, 2010)

Well usually when one says cannabis, you mean eating the plant i.e. brownie or something of the such, Marijuana is the term for smoking, or so I have always thought.


----------



## RyanO (Oct 25, 2010)

EVH said:


> Well usually when one says cannabis, you mean eating the plant i.e. brownie or something of the such, Marijuana is the term for smoking, or so I have always thought.


 
Thanks for making it clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## riffz (Oct 25, 2010)

EVH said:


> Well usually when one says cannabis, you mean eating the plant i.e. brownie or something of the such, Marijuana is the term for smoking, or so I have always thought.


 
Wrong.

EDIT: ninja'd


----------



## blakedacuber (Oct 25, 2010)

me and my friend were talking about this the other day personnaly i can see a for and an against on the topic. imo it should be legalised because as bad as it is so is alcahol and cigarettes and just like everything else tht people enjoy drinking/eating/taking but should be illegal because otherwise we'll see 12yr old pot heads everywhere and i.e society will slowly lose its intelligence becaue it kills so many brain cells


----------



## hawkmp4 (Oct 25, 2010)

blakedacuber said:


> me and my friend were talking about this the other day personnaly i can see a for and an against on the topic. imo it should be legalised because as bad as it is so is alcahol and cigarettes and just like everything else tht people enjoy drinking/eating/taking but should be illegal because otherwise we'll see 12yr old pot heads everywhere and i.e society will slowly lose its intelligence becaue it kills so many brain cells


Right. Because society is plagued by 12 year old drunks...

...and because there are no intelligent people who smoke weed.

Bahahahahaha.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Oct 25, 2010)

blakedacuber said:


> me and my friend were talking about this the other day personnaly i can see a for and an against on the topic. imo it should be legalised because as bad as it is so is alcahol and cigarettes and just like everything else tht people enjoy drinking/eating/taking but should be illegal because otherwise we'll see 12yr old pot heads everywhere and i.e society will slowly lose its intelligence becaue it kills so many brain cells


 
1. Studies have shown that marijuana use only has any noticeable long term effect on memory and intelligence in very heavy(five joints per week for 10 years) users. There has never been any evidence for a significant drop in brain cells or intelligence in casual users.
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/166/7/887

2. Studies have repeatedly shown that under the current laws and regulations, it significantly easier for teens to obtain marijuana than alcohol. While the current alcohol laws in the US certainly don't stop underage drinking, they do a much better job at keeping alcohol away from children than marijuana laws do. The reasoning for this is really really simple. Liquor stores ask for ID, drug dealers don't. Legalizing and controlling cannabis is expected to do a better job keeping marijuana out of middle/high school than the current law does.
http://blog.norml.org/2009/08/28/study-says-its-easier-for-teens-to-buy-marijuana-than-beer/

Edit: I will personally testify that in the High School I went to, it was a lot easier to get marijuana than it was to get alcohol, and I'm sure that many American teens on this forum would agree with this.


----------



## Logan (Oct 25, 2010)

Whats marajewanna?


----------



## Rpotts (Oct 25, 2010)

EVH said:


> Cannabis is kind of like marijuana


no wai, ur dum



RyanO said:


> Thanks for making it clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.



boosh



blakedacuber said:


> me and my friend were talking about this the other day personnaly i can see a for and an against on the topic.* imo it should be legalised* because as bad as it is so is alcahol and cigarettes and just like everything else tht people enjoy drinking/eating/taking* but should be illegal* because otherwise we'll see 12yr old pot heads everywhere and i.e society will slowly lose its intelligence becaue it kills so many brain cells



this post lacks sense.


----------



## Andreaillest (Oct 25, 2010)

Logan said:


> Whats marajewanna?


It's a drug. Drugs are bad, mmkay.

In all seriousness, I'm all for it. I'm very curious too see what would happen if marijuana were legalized and what kind of restrictions would be put on it. 

I'm looking up polls for the prop and as of right now, a lot of people are turning it down. Strange. In April, majority voters said yes. I wonder what made them change their minds?


----------



## qqwref (Oct 25, 2010)

Gotta agree with Ethan (legalizing marijuana = less violence, less gang activity, fewer users in jail, easier regulation, extra taxes), plus I don't believe it's ethical to prevent people from making what you believe is a bad decision by chasing after and arresting them, especially when the facts don't support your belief. Marijuana is safer than alcohol and nicotine, both to the user and to other people. I don't use it, but I do think it should be legal everywhere.

Unfortunately I have heard the federal government might essentially overturn this proposition (if passed) by prosecuting marijuana use as a *federal crime* in CA. Is this just a bad rumor?


----------



## hawkmp4 (Oct 25, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Gotta agree with Ethan (legalizing marijuana = less violence, less gang activity, fewer users in jail, easier regulation, extra taxes), plus I don't believe it's ethical to prevent people from making what you believe is a bad decision by chasing after and arresting them, especially when the facts don't support your belief. Marijuana is safer than alcohol and nicotine, both to the user and to other people. I don't use it, but I do think it should be legal everywhere.
> 
> Unfortunately I have heard the federal government might essentially overturn this proposition (if passed) by prosecuting marijuana use as a *federal crime* in CA. Is this just a bad rumor?


Well, something similar has happened here. The city of Denver has legalised possession of small amounts, but that didn't help any because state troopers still prosecute it as a crime under state law.


----------



## goatseforever (Oct 25, 2010)

Marijuana is bad for you I know this from personal experience my brother used to be a straight A student and captain of the football team until one day he tried a marijuana cigarette and got addicted he started spending all his time and money on marijuana until one day he overdosed and died.


----------



## DavidWoner (Oct 25, 2010)

Yes, federal law supersedes state and municipal laws. That is why the DEA used to raid medicinal dispensaries in CA.

Even if prop 19 passes the federal government does have the power to punish it as a crime regardless.


----------



## RyanO (Oct 25, 2010)

goatseforever said:


> Marijuana is bad for you I know this from personal experience my brother used to be a straight A student and captain of the football team until one day he tried a marijuana cigarette and got addicted he started spending all his time and money on marijuana until one day he overdosed and died.


 
He didn't overdose on marijuana. Blaming the effects of another substance on prior marijuana use doesn't work. Most marijuana users don't end up in your brother's situation. Decriminalizing marijuana would actually help avoid these unfortunate situations. The most problematic aspect of marijuana use is having to deal with shady characters to procure it. If marijuana was available legally your brother likely wouldn't have got involved with the people who introduced him to harder drugs. (I realize that your post is probably a joke, but I decided to respond to it anyway)


----------



## Edward (Oct 25, 2010)

RyanO, you obviously don't really know goatseforever's style of posts


----------



## iasimp1997 (Oct 25, 2010)

Not this again...


----------



## RyanO (Oct 25, 2010)

Of course the post is a parody, but there are people who would make similar claims out of seriousness and felt it was worth responding to for that reason.


----------



## ChrisBird (Oct 25, 2010)

So I didn't bother to read through the entire thread, and I don't plan on it unless you think there's something important that contradicts my view on it, in which case let me know.

My opinion, in short, is that it isn't the government's job to protect the people from themselves. Like George Carlin said "The kid who swallows too many marbles doesn't grow up to have kids of his own."
Short, simple, elegant (as elegant as GC can be)

I don't know what the drug does, nor do I care at all. It isn't the government's job. If it kills the person taking it instantly, that's their fault. If it makes them feel like they are riding a unicorn through candy land, that's their gain/lose (depending on viewpoint), if it gives you a massive love of cheetos and lounging on the couch, go for it. The government shouldn't care.

Where I start to care is when what one does affects someone else. If someone gets in a car crash and kills them self only (and maybe a lamp post or tree) then that's their fault. But if they kill someone else, then is when the government has to step in and do something about it.

Hell, the government could even make some money off of taxing it, I don't care. Maybe it could help pay for some of the **** our wonderful president*S* have got us into.

Look at prohibition, failure. What makes this any different?

~Chris


----------



## Jukuren (Oct 25, 2010)

EVH said:


> If you smoke too much which can make you hungry, which means that you will eat, which then means that if you smoke too much then eat too much then you can get fat.
> 
> I also highly doubt that eating a lot of candy will give you a heart-attack, more like diabeetus.


 
if you smoke too much you will think your awesome cuz you just got a PB of 16 sec but later when your sober find out that you forgot about the 15 sec inspection timer count down so you really only got a 31 sec solve


----------



## Escher (Oct 25, 2010)

Ethan Rosen said:


> 1. Studies have shown that marijuana use only has any noticeable long term effect on memory and intelligence in very heavy(five joints per week for 10 years) users.


 
I'd definitely describe that as 'regular', not 'very heavy'. In my experience very heavy is more like 4-5 per day - I'd be interested to see if there were any long term effects on memory or intelligence from use like that over a shorter period of time. 



Ethan Rosen said:


> I will personally testify that in the High School I went to, it was a lot easier to get marijuana than it was to get alcohol, and I'm sure that many American teens on this forum would agree with this.


 
Definitely my experience too, despite living in England where both the legal drinking age is younger and (therefore?)there is a generally more relaxed attitude about underage drinking from a lot of shop-owners (I didn't get asked for ID until I was over 18 and I was purchasing alcohol regularly for 3-4 years before that). 

The drugs debate is a fascinating topic, both intellectually and also in laughing at how stupid generally intelligent people can be on a topic (i.e. most politicians).

I do hope for California's sake this gets passed.


----------



## jiggy (Oct 25, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> Right. Because society is plagued by 12 year old drunks...


Do you not have chavs in America?

Darn...that's one in favour of the yanks I guess...


----------



## Lorken (Oct 25, 2010)

I am all for it, except I live in New Zealand  and no, it's not bad for you imo.

EDIT: Just read through the rest of the topic, it is almost impossible to overdose on marijuana. I will discuss more on this topic later, I have an exam in the morning


----------



## IamWEB (Oct 25, 2010)

Well...

"Hi William."
"High Weston."

/thread?


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Oct 25, 2010)

Ethan Rosen said:


> and most importantly, stop sending innocent people to jail.


 
This point I'll dispute. Breaking federal law does not make one "innocent". Whether or not that crime is one that should be prosecuted, or should be a crime at all, is another question entirely, and I don't care to argue either side in that debate. But a person who is arrested for using marijuana is not "innocent".


----------



## qqwref (Oct 25, 2010)

ChrisBird said:


> Like George Carlin said "The kid who swallows too many marbles doesn't grow up to have kids of his own."


What if the people in power don't believe in evolution? :tu



ChrisBird said:


> Where I start to care is when what one does affects someone else. If someone gets in a car crash and kills them self only (and maybe a lamp post or tree) then that's their fault. But if they kill someone else, then is when the government has to step in and do something about it.


I saw an article about a study which found that people who are drunk tend to drive more quickly/dangerously (I guess they feel invincible or something) whereas people who are stoned tend to drive more slowly/cautiously (I guess they know they're intoxicated). I can't back this up, but it seems valid just going on intuition. Haven't heard of a lot of car crashes attributed to someone who was only stoned.



Tim Reynolds said:


> Ethan Rosen said:
> 
> 
> > stop sending innocent people to jail
> ...


Right, but I think what he really meant was that marijuana users aren't guilty of an ethical wrong against other people. To me and probably many others, the real point of law is to protect people from each other and prevent dangerous people from continuing to do damage, not to just list a bunch of random things and jail anyone who does them. Nobody is protected when you arrest a marijuana user. I suppose you could say that you are protecting the user themself, but that doesn't fit with the current prison system in the US, because it tends to offer a lot more drug use and violence than actual rehabilitative effort.


----------



## DavidWoner (Oct 25, 2010)

Tim Reynolds said:


> This point I'll dispute. Breaking federal law does not make one "innocent". Whether or not that crime is one that should be prosecuted, or should be a crime at all, is another question entirely, and I don't care to argue either side in that debate. But a person who is arrested for using marijuana is not "innocent".


 
In most major marijuana cases, prosecutors are willing to lessen sentences if the defendants testify against others. So those who were highly involved barely serve time and those who were hardly associated often have the blame laid on them, and since they don't have any names to give they end up serving everyone else's time. So with the current system, it is VERY possible for innocent people to go to jail. I know this article is kind of long, but it was assigned reading for my POLS class and I would definitely recommend it: https://bboard.mcckc.edu/@@5367F84C...ntent/_1536822_1/Schlosser_REEFER MADNESS.doc


----------



## IamWEB (Oct 25, 2010)

Wait a second...

How is legalizing it going to help better control it? If anyone has a problem with whatever system they want to impose, can't they just go back to the good old fashion way of obtaining it illegally?

*scratches head*


----------



## endless_akatsuki (Oct 25, 2010)

IamWEB said:


> Wait a second...
> 
> How is legalizing it going to help better control it? If anyone has a problem with whatever system they want to impose, can't they just go back to the good old fashion way of obtaining it illegally?
> 
> *scratches head*



yeah, but as a rule of thumb, people prefer not to get arrested.


----------



## DavidWoner (Oct 25, 2010)

Because obtaining it illegally is a pain in the ass. If I can just go down to the gas station and pick up a soda and a sack, you can bet that's what I (and most people) will do.

Sure people still make moonshine illegally, but it pales in comparison to legal alcohol sales, simply because it is so much easier to just do it legally.


----------



## ChrisBird (Oct 25, 2010)

qqwref said:


> What if the people in power don't believe in evolution? :tu



That's their problem =p
His quote was an example I used to explain what I mean, pertaining to personal responsibility vs. Government hand-holding.


----------



## IamWEB (Oct 25, 2010)

endless_akatsuki said:


> yeah, but as a rule of thumb, people prefer not to get arrested.


 
If someone had a problem with the system of obtaining it, couldn't they just go back an obtain it illegally? Obtaining it not being that hard of a thing to do, sometimes. (@David)


----------



## Joker (Oct 25, 2010)

I don't agree with drugs like those. I disagree.


----------



## blade740 (Oct 25, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> Because obtaining it illegally is a pain in the ass. If I can just go down to the gas station and pick up a soda and a sack, you can bet that's what I (and most people) will do.
> 
> Sure people still make moonshine illegally, but it pales in comparison to legal alcohol sales, simply because it is so much easier to just do it legally.


 
There's a difference, though. Making moonshine is still illegal. Under prop 19, adults have the right to grow their own cannabis in a 5'x5' plot, and keep and share (share, not sell, but that's not much of an obstacle) the harvest. 

More on topic, though, I plan to vote YES. As has been said before, the prohibition of cannabis does much more harm than good. Prop 19 will do the following:

1. Increase tax revenue. California is broke, and we need all the tax revenue we can get. Cannabis is California's biggest cash crop, with an estimated $14 billion in sales annually. And right now, only a tiny fraction of that is taxed. While this initiative doesn't include a tax, it provides a framework for the state legislature as well as individual cities to levy taxes on cannabis.

2. Decrease law enforcement spending. California spends roughly $200 million enforcing prohibition every year. Our jails are full, our courts are packed, and again, the state is already broke. This frees up a ton of state funds to be used for more important things, like education. 

3. Weaken drug cartels. Much of the illegal cannabis trade in California can be traced back to Mexican drug gangs. Remember that $14 billion Californians spend on cannabis every year? Yup, a lot of that goes to violent gangsters over the border. We can draw parallels to alcohol prohibition, which put power in the hands of bootlegging gangs. 

4. Decrease racial ineq-**** this. I'm too high for this ****.

Smoke weed every day.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Oct 26, 2010)

It is WAY safer than alcohol, which is legal.

They can tax the hell out of it, helping the economy a lot.

It will lower the rate of new people using harder drugs(The gateway theory is illogical, the main reason why a lot of people who start smoking are around other drugs when buying it on the black market).

Gang violence will go down.

The prison system won't be as clogged, saving us money and keep people who really aren't criminals out of the prison system.

It's good for you in many ways, and unlike things like alcohol and tobacco, does not have serious long term effects.

A few facts and comparisons. 
50,000 people die per year from alcohol related deaths. There has never been a documented case of death caused by marijuana intoxication.

There are several safe ways to ingest marijuana, that are not at risk of causing any lung problems. Marijuana can be cooked into baked goods, and can also be vaporized.

Marijuana is not addictive.. With the lack of physical damaging, lack of death rate, and lack of addiction, marijuana does not pose ability for serious abuse, as alcohol does.

Marijuana does not cause memory loss. True, there can be some loss of short term memory, your long term memory does not get effected.

Marijuana has been proven to be used as a successful medicine. Marijuana reduces nausea, which is why a common use for the medical marijuana is people who are going through chemotherapy.

The mentally relaxing prospects have been able to help people with things such as ADHD. The physical relaxation can help reduce physical torretes tics. Marijuana also causes hunger(Slang term "The munchies"), and has been used to treat those suffering from eating disorders such as anorexia. 

Marijuana causes your eye muscles to relax. This side effect has been proven to help aid those who suffer from glaucoma.

The physical relaxation effects of marijuana also can help those with pain, muscle tension and arthritis.



Really, there aren't any legitimate reason for it to be illegal.


----------



## flan (Oct 26, 2010)

IamWEB said:


> If someone had a problem with the system of obtaining it, couldn't they just go back an obtain it illegally? Obtaining it not being that hard of a thing to do, sometimes. (@David)


 
The black market will have shrunk considerably. It wouldnt be easy anymore. Just like how its not easy for the average person to obtain moonshine these days.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Oct 26, 2010)

flan said:


> The black market will have shrunk considerably. It wouldnt be easy anymore. Just like how its not easy for the average person to obtain moonshine these days.


 
Yup. It will probably get to the know the right person status over a period of time.

Also, I forgot. If it is legally grown, the risk of the weed being laced with **** like sherm, or sprayed with water to weigh it down will be eliminated.


----------



## freshcuber (Oct 26, 2010)

blade740 said:


> 2. Decrease law enforcement spending. California spends roughly $200 million enforcing prohibition every year. Our jails are full, our courts are packed, and again, the state is already broke. This frees up a ton of state funds to be used for more important things, like education.



I'm not going to get in this debate because I live 3,000 miles away and there are already people arguing my view but I must applaud you for connecting the legalization of marijuana to the bettering of California's education. Well done :tu


----------



## Hadley4000 (Oct 26, 2010)

freshcuber said:


> I'm not going to get in this debate because I live 3,000 miles away and there are already people arguing my view but I must applaud you for connecting the legalization of marijuana to the bettering of California's education. Well done :tu


 



Plenty of people who smoke weed do very well in school. I write WAY better. 

The effects of weed only last on average about 2 hours when smoked, and does not have long term effects. Maybe if you smoke 10 minutes before class you might have an issue.


----------



## amostay2004 (Oct 26, 2010)

Damn you guys make me wanna smoke some weed


----------



## endless_akatsuki (Oct 26, 2010)

Joker said:


> I don't agree with drugs like those. I disagree.


 
So what drug do you agree with?


----------



## blade740 (Oct 26, 2010)

freshcuber said:


> I'm not going to get in this debate because I live 3,000 miles away and there are already people arguing my view but I must applaud you for connecting the legalization of marijuana to the bettering of California's education. Well done :tu


 
I'm not sure if this is sarcastic or not, but this is a serious issue. 

California has one of the poorest public education systems in the country, and thousands of teachers have been laid off, with more to follow. As I've said, the state's budget is severely strained and funding to education has been slashed in recent years. If we have to let a couple of people get high as an investment in our future, I'm all for it.


----------



## drewsopchak (Oct 26, 2010)

*Free market economics*

In Terms of government, the war in drugs is extremely costly with little results. In ordern to eliminate the border violence and end the cartels, you have to have competiion. Legalize, tax it a bunch. No one will buy expensive monopolized weed when you could screw yourself by walking to a gas station. Thats the Personal reaponsibility and free market economic policy. Plus, honesty we have much better ways to spend us debt then trying to enfource laws , so easy to break.


----------



## freshcuber (Oct 26, 2010)

blade740 said:


> I'm not sure if this is sarcastic or not, but this is a serious issue.
> 
> California has one of the poorest public education systems in the country, and thousands of teachers have been laid off, with more to follow. As I've said, the state's budget is severely strained and funding to education has been slashed in recent years. If we have to let a couple of people get high as an investment in our future, I'm all for it.


 
I was being serious.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 26, 2010)

IamWEB said:


> How is legalizing it going to help better control it?


Because whenever you have an illegal product which can potentially provide huge profits, organized crime springs up or moves in to take advantage of that. (If you legalize all the drugs, where are gangs going to make enough money to afford weapons and cars and so on?) Selling drugs is a huge business, not just because drugs are popular and expensive, but because the dealers can easily cut the drug with useless or even dangerous additives. That way, you can have something which easily sells for 10+ times the cost of production and transportation. Regulation shouldn't be much of a problem because the alternative is often dangerous - I've heard of many cases where one drug was mixed with another drug or even a somewhat toxic chemical, and nobody wants to consume something that has no guarantee of safety.

On the other hand, if something is legal, it's very easy to control. You will get big companies who produce it (like the huge alcohol and tobacco companies) and can then be held accountable for what they do and what they sell. Reputation matters and a company with many negative reports will actually have an incentive to fix their product, unlike a gang who couldn't care less if their customers get sick or die. As an added bonus, big companies can optimize costs a lot, and can end up producing something so cheaply that it would actually take more money and/or time to buy it illegally.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Oct 26, 2010)

amostay2004 said:


> Damn you guys make me wanna smoke some weed


 
Dude I'm way ahead of you


----------



## Lorken (Oct 26, 2010)

Hadley4000 said:


> Plenty of people who smoke weed do very well in school. I write WAY better.
> 
> The effects of weed only last on average about 2 hours when smoked, and does not have long term effects. Maybe if you smoke 10 minutes before class you might have an issue.


 
I used to be baked almost 100% of my waking hours, it still doesn't stop my engineering A+'s though  Just can't do it before a test :fp



Ethan Rosen said:


> Dude I'm way ahead of you


----------



## iasimp1997 (Oct 26, 2010)

I personally believe we have more serious issues to deal with than this.
*coughcoughf**kedupeducationalsystemCOUGHCOUGHthozdurnallurgyz:I*


----------



## beingforitself (Oct 26, 2010)

iasimp1997 said:


> I personally believe we have more serious issues to deal with than this.
> *coughcoughf**kedupeducationalsystemCOUGHCOUGHthozdurnallurgyz:I*


 
Marijuana prohibition is an extremely serious issue in the United States.

Thousands of innocent civilians, including children, are murdered along the Mexican border every year in a drug war largely fueled by the profits cartels make from the sale of marijuana.

The lives of hundreds of thousands of people are ruined every year for marijuana possession. Children are taken from parents by the state, mothers and fathers are sent to prison, and families are split apart for nothing more than responsibly using marijuana.

Hundreds of innocent Americans have been murdered in botched police raids nationwide due to the prohibition of marijuana. People with debilitating and painful illnesses are literally denied the most effective medication available to them, then thrown in prison for possession of that medicine. Many of them die because of this.

I would highly recommend that you read a few of the stories on http://www.mpp.org/victims/victim-stories.html and http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-war-victim/, and then come back to laugh about how "stupid" it is that people care about marijuana prohibition.


----------



## Joker (Oct 26, 2010)

ChrisBird said:


> Where I start to care is when what one does affects someone else. If someone gets in a car crash and kills them self only (and maybe a lamp post or tree) then that's their fault. But if they kill someone else, then is when the government has to step in and do something about it.
> 
> Look at prohibition, failure. What makes this any different?
> 
> ~Chris


 
People are definately going to be affected that do not smoke it. I can guarantee. People go to a club, get high off of it, and drive drunk. Many people get killed when people are on drugs, even when the drugs aren't something like alcohol.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 26, 2010)

Anybody with any economical sense can see why legalizing Marijuana would have great effects on the economy. Weed is used quite a bit more often (in the group of people I know) than alcohol, and would be almost doubled if they didn't have to do it in the comfort of their own home.

I completely agree with Hadley about this. Alcohol is much more dangerous than Marijuana. Unfortunately his first statement is flawed a bit. 500,000 Alcohol related deaths (this lumps in drunk driving which is a huge cause of deaths) whereas it states that nobody has overdosed on Marijunana (but how many have died because a driver was high?). 

http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/05/07/20/the_6_most_common_causes_of_automobile_crashes.htm Driving while high is not even on this list. 

Hadley, do you remember talking about Alcohol vs Marijuana at Applebees with me? 

Tim Reynolds: Have you ever snored with your windows open? What about wore a goatee in public? If you went to church on Sundays, did you carry a rifle with you? Prior to 2000. did you have any tattoos or body piercings? There are a lot of dumb laws in almost every state, yet according to you, each should be jailed for the offense.

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/massachusetts

http://wbztv.com/slideshows/strange.massachusetts.laws.20.760206.html

qqwref: You said based off intuition about how people drive crazy drunk but calm stoned. Both of these substances are downers. Using this logic alone, it doesn't make much sense that one downer would make you crazy whereas another would make you relaxed. Most of the "crazy attitudes" from drunkness are caused by environment (parties and such), which can still make high people act the same way.


----------



## Joker (Oct 26, 2010)

Aren't some drugs you smoke considered healthy in some cases? Some people say weed has made their health better, but they might just be imaginating it.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 26, 2010)

Imaginating? (And many people have had clear improvements from using medicinal marijuana. I'd like to hear the same about medical cigarettes or medical booze.)

The article Woner linked to is pretty interesting. Funny how being the middleman in a pot sale is considered more dangerous to society than being a murderer or rapist.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 26, 2010)

Joker...imagining, not imaginating. I suggest you find a browser with built in spell check hah.

Ninja'd by qqwref. Btw I posetd to you.


----------



## beingforitself (Oct 26, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Funny how being the middleman in a pot sale is considered more dangerous to society than being a murderer or rapist.


 
Well, if you take the long historical view, this could almost be considered progress of a sort. Once upon a time heresy (thought crime) was considered one of the most dangerous crimes against society. Now we have progressed to simply assisting the voluntary placement of reasonably harmless chemicals into someone's body as the most heinous offense to social order.


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Oct 26, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> Tim Reynolds: Have you ever snored with your windows open? What about wore a goatee in public? If you went to church on Sundays, did you carry a rifle with you? Prior to 2000. did you have any tattoos or body piercings? There are a lot of dumb laws in almost every state, yet according to you, each should be jailed for the offense.



Cool, you put words in my mouth.

My argument was that Ethan's last point was not true. A person that violates the law is not innocent, however ridiculous said laws may be. As I stated, I'm not arguing whether or not the laws should be in place, merely the fact that (as I understood) Ethan was saying that those who are in jail for smoking weed were innocent. This is patently false--they broke the law, and therefore they are not innocent. Ethan's argument has been clarified/modified by others, so as long as it is clear that Ethan is not suggesting that those who smoke weed are innocent, I have no issue with his argument.

And, nice try, but no, I haven't broken any of those laws while in Massachusetts. I have jaywalked though. Every time I do so, I understand that I am breaking the law and may be ticketed. People who smoke weed should do so with the understanding that they are breaking the laws, and may suffer legal consequences. They can also use democratic, legal means to alter said laws, as they are attempting to do now. I support their use of democracy. But I will call foul when arguments in favor of legalization of marijuana are factually incorrect (as I understood Ethan's last point to be). I would do that for both sides, but there's enough people on this thread on the pro side that they're doing a good enough job of it. Plus, most of the anti arguments on this thread are too pointless to waste time arguing with.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Oct 26, 2010)

I meant innocent as in morally innocent, not legally innocent. I am obviously aware that smoking/possessing marijuana is against the law.


----------



## blakedacuber (Oct 26, 2010)

5-10 times a week isnt much i was talking to several different people who smoke marajuana and i asked how many theyd smoke a week an most said maybe 20


i agree with Chris th if someone wants to do self harm let them as long as it only harms them

how do u define a chav?just curious


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Oct 26, 2010)

Anyone who smokes 20 times a week is not a casual smoker. That is very heavy use.


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 26, 2010)

20 heavy lol


----------



## qqwref (Oct 26, 2010)

4, 20, who cares, the number is only important as a comparison to a smoker or drinker who uses a similar amount...


----------



## Hadley4000 (Oct 26, 2010)

Joker said:


> People are definately going to be affected that do not smoke it. I can guarantee. People go to a club, get high off of it, and drive drunk. Many people get killed when people are on drugs, even when the drugs aren't something like alcohol.




Walking through a club or bar and passing smoke won't get you high. You'd pretty much have to be in the car with it. It takes a LOT more than passing it to get you high. If that were the case, all jam band and reggae concerts would have everyone high.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Oct 26, 2010)

qqwref said:


> 4, 20,


 

Did you do that on purpose?

20 times a week depends on how much you smoke. If you only take 1 hit each time, it's not that much. It depends a lot on their tolerance, too. If someone has a really high tolerance, then smoking 20 times might not do that much.


----------



## Rpotts (Oct 26, 2010)

Joker said:


> People are definately going to be affected that do not smoke it. I can guarantee. People go to a club, get high off of it, and drive drunk. Many people get killed when people are on drugs, even when the drugs aren't something like alcohol.



There is not enough THC in second hand smoke, especially when in a large environment like a club with tons of space for the smoke to dissipate in, for someone to get high. And certainly not enough to get *drunk*.



fatboyxpc said:


> qqwref: You said based off intuition about how people drive crazy drunk but calm stoned. Both of these substances are downers. Using this logic alone, it doesn't make much sense that one downer would make you crazy whereas another would make you relaxed. Most of the "crazy attitudes" from drunkness are caused by environment (parties and such), which can still make high people act the same way.



I disagree, a ton of people getting high together, even in a party environment with music n stuff won't act anything like a ton of people getting wasted together. Getting drunk does, in my experience, lead to reckless driving, because it's fun. Getting high, in my experience, leads to over cautious driving for many people. I almost always find myself driving 5 mph slower than normal when high, sometimes even more. However, getting high sets you up to space out, and run the risk of running stop signs n such, getting drunk can have similar effects.



Hadley4000 said:


> If that were the case, all jam band and reggae concerts would have everyone high.


 
don't they?


----------



## Hadley4000 (Oct 26, 2010)

Rpotts said:


> don't they?


 

Okay, usually about 2/3(Maybe 80% at Phish. Srs.)


@fatboyxpc:
Weed is a stimulant and depressant. One of not too many popular recreational drugs that is both.

Fights, drunk driving wrecks, these are frequent. How many people get drunk and start fights? Tons. How many people get stoned and start fights? None(Though I was recently in a VERY heated debate about if Funyuns or Sun Chips were better. That went on for a loooooong time). Find a documented case of a deadly car crash in America that is attributed SOLELY to marijuana. Don't worry, I'll wait. How many drunk driving fatalities in just the past year? Over 37,000. Gee, I wonder which is safer!

And remember, a drunk driver runs a stop sign. A stoned driver waits for it to turn green.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 26, 2010)

Hadley: After a *very* short bit of research, it seems that it depends on the person on which it will be. In my opinion that's all psychological at that point, but my opinion really doesn't matter in this case. I just remember in the million D.A.R.E. classes I had when I was younger that they always mentioned it being a depressant. I can actually tell you a case about a stoned person that started a fight. He jumped me. He then told me as I hit him in repeatedly in the face how he couldn't feel anything because he was high. I'd love for somebody to find a documented case of a car crash that is based on marijuana alone. I'd also like for somebody to find a single documented case of marijuana overdose. The best part is, I don't even partake in the enjoyment of the herb, yet I feel it's much much safer than alcohol.


----------



## Rpotts (Oct 26, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> I'd also like for somebody to find a single documented case of marijuana overdose. The best part is, I don't even partake in the enjoyment of the herb, yet I feel it's much much safer than alcohol.



There are none. The amount that you would need to ingest to overdose is inhuman. I heard estimations in the pounds of weed smoked to absorb enough THC to be deadly. Also, why is that the best part?


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 26, 2010)

That's the point that was being made  It's the best part because it should be obvious that even somebody who is against any sort of drug (including medicine such as acetaminophine aka Tylenol) can see the upsides to legalizing this. I wonder if part of the reason it's staying illegal is the "how far will it go?" type of question that would be spurred if it ever became federally legal.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 26, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> qqwref: You said based off intuition about how people drive crazy drunk but calm stoned. Both of these substances are downers. Using this logic alone, it doesn't make much sense that one downer would make you crazy whereas another would make you relaxed. Most of the "crazy attitudes" from drunkness are caused by environment (parties and such), which can still make high people act the same way.


It's just not accurate to go "both substances are downers" and then act as if they therefore work the same way. Alcohol may technically be a depressant, but that doesn't seem to stop all the people who get in drunk fights, become angry or violent when drunk, drive dangerously when drunk, become "party animals" when they drink, vandalize property when drunk, etc. I know it's not just culture, because there are plenty of people who drink when alone or with one or two other people and then act crazy. You just don't hear the same stuff when people talk about people who only use pot.

Anyone remember this video from last thread?


----------



## DavidWoner (Oct 26, 2010)

I've found that the "how far will it go?" argument is typically used by people who are unable to differentiate between marijuana and other drugs.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Oct 26, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> Hadley: After a *very* short bit of research, it seems that it depends on the person on which it will be. In my opinion that's all psychological at that point, but my opinion really doesn't matter in this case. I just remember in the million D.A.R.E. classes I had when I was younger that they always mentioned it being a depressant. I can actually tell you a case about a stoned person that started a fight. He jumped me. He then told me as I hit him in repeatedly in the face how he couldn't feel anything because he was high. I'd love for somebody to find a documented case of a car crash that is based on marijuana alone. I'd also like for somebody to find a single documented case of marijuana overdose. The best part is, I don't even partake in the enjoyment of the herb, yet I feel it's much much safer than alcohol.


 
It sounds from your story as if the person attacking you was on something like PCP or cocaine, not marijuana. Marijuana doesn't affect people's ability to feel pain in that way. And just because alcohol is a depressant and marijuana is somewhat of a depressant in no way indicates any similarity in the effects.


----------



## M4rQu5 (Oct 26, 2010)




----------



## Kirjava (Oct 26, 2010)

Hadley4000 said:


> Walking through a club or bar and passing smoke won't get you high. You'd pretty much have to be in the car with it. It takes a LOT more than passing it to get you high. If that were the case, all jam band and reggae concerts would have everyone high.


 
he's talking about innocent people being hurt by someone driving while high

I don't understand though because that'd still be illegal

implying that it doesn't happen already?


----------



## Hadley4000 (Oct 26, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> he's talking about innocent people being hurt by someone driving while high
> 
> I don't understand though because that'd still be illegal
> 
> implying that it doesn't happen already?




For one, there has not been a documented case of a deadly accident in the USA caused solely by marijuana intoxication.

Also, that constitutes a DUI with it illegal now. Why not keep it that way? You're much more likely to be hurt by a drunk driver, and that's illegal. You're also likely to have a wreck while someone is on the phone, but that's legal in some states, you're likely to have a wreck with someone who is eating, lighting a cigarette, tired, bad tires, bad brakes, in the rain, etc etc. Why not pass laws against driving in the rain?

The point is, these are things that have had documented cases. Not marijuana.

37,000 a year by DUI alcohol, 0 a year in the USA while stoned.


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 26, 2010)

yah I just said that


----------



## Systemdertoten (Oct 26, 2010)

View attachment 1271
Photoshop fail. :fp


----------



## endless_akatsuki (Oct 27, 2010)

Seriously can't wait for Nov 2 elections...


----------



## IamWEB (Oct 27, 2010)

Systemdertoten said:


> View attachment 1271
> Photoshop fail. :fp


 
Obvious difference = photoshop win.


----------



## blade740 (Oct 28, 2010)

My vote is in.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 28, 2010)

Ethan: The kid had at least smoked it, he's actually quite the stoner. I just took what he said as a typical generalization of kids trying to be cool by doing drugs. He wouldn't have wanted to fight had he actually been high. The full story is that a group of people there wanted to see he and I fight so they really did the starting of it and he let his own rage go from there. By the time I got outside (I see the obvious ring of people waiting for a fight) I asked what was going on, then I got tackled from behind.

qqwref: One of the first things (if not the first) alcohol does is affect your judgement. This will cause a chain reaction for the events to follow. Since alcohol is a depressant, it relaxes you. When you get relaxed you're more comfortable with acting more like yourself rather than watch how you act in front of people. Your judgement is flawed so now your actions become even more exaggerated. Mix this with the fact that people go to parties with the expectation to be loud and obnoxious and you can quickly see why this can make a downer look more like a stimulant. Try taking a few shots on your own, keep your (expected) environment completely out of it. Try to also keep your expectations out of it. Notice after these few shots you are tired. This is the depressant working. So what about those angry drunks? If it's such a depressant why don't they just curl up in a ball and fall asleep? The fact is that the "angry drunks" are just showing that they might have normally bottled up. When people are sober they usually try to avoid confrontation. A drunk person doesn't have the same judgement, so what they're actually thinking is more prone to come out rather than something non-confrontational. A good example of this is when I drink and I hear loud music (my girlfriend likes dancing with her girl friends), I get annoyed and say something about turning it down a lot quicker than when I'm sober (although this may not be completely accurate because I'm pretty quick to turn down the music even when sober). If the music wasn't as loud, I'm not near as sober. I was jokingly called an angry drunk when I tried to fight a buddy of mine (drunk pretty bad). I didn't want to fight at first, only wrestle around a bit, but he didn't want any part of it. For whatever reason I got offended and had I been sober I'd have just ragged on him all night about how he's scared of me and try to shrug it off. Instead I let the offense build up. This isn't a product of the alcohol making me "crazy," it's a product of the alcohol affecting my judgement. The effect is no longer alcohol's affect on you, it's how you've felt the entire time, but you express it now in a differemt manner because you care less about how it affects other people.

I'm not sure how much marijuana affects judgement, so I can't really speak about that. If it kept judgement intact then that'd be quite a trump card as to why it's still a downer and gives you that relaxed feeling whereas alcohol can but "seems" to make people act like they've taken an upper instead.

My main point wasn't that though, but more based off how you said intuition. If you understand both substances are both downers, how can you not question how one substance seems like it's more of a stimulant than it is a depressant? Have you never heard about high people being obnoxious? Giggly? Ready to prank each other? I just feel like the negatives of alcohol and positives of pot are the only things being evaluated instead of all of them for each.


----------



## Rpotts (Oct 28, 2010)

^^
So many assumptions made. You seem to only describe one type of drunk and stereotype drinkning/people in general around it. 

About your "main point", which pales in comparison to the wall of text before it, lol - In my recent experience with college aged kids there aren't a ton of giggly/obnoxious stoners. More chill stoners who've been getting high for a while and are kinda over the uncontrollable giddyness(not a word.) There are however plenty of obnoxious drunks, in fact I find most everyone gets obnoxious when they get very drunk.

Of course marijuana effects your judgement, atleast somewhat. Cause when you're high you want different things and tailor your choices around your high(I have made a stereotypical assumption here, sorry) post over.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 28, 2010)

I actually described two types of drunk, and explained why they act that way  The main point I realized how much I typed and got tired of typing lol  I think the giggly stoners happen from the environment as well. I also know a lot of stoners who just talk a *lot* when they're stoned (same with drunks, though). I also know a friend who hardly spends any waking seconds sober because he just flat out doesn't like to not be high. He can't work on anything that requires a great deal of focus unless he's high.

I don't see how I made assumptions though. For the most part, when you expect to go to a party, you're going to end up obnoxious whether you're drunk or sober. If you can break that barrier that alcohol breaks, sober, then a lot of your friends easily get annoyed because they aren't in that same mood. It's sort of like being a sober person around drunks, it's really not any fun. I can more than break that barrier sober, I do so a lot 

I certainly believe if you take other people / specific environments away from drunks, they'll act completely different. Since judgement is the key thing affected when you're drunk, it just starts a chain reaction that can go very man ways.


----------



## Escher (Oct 28, 2010)

The effects of Marijuana depend on the strain smoked; Sativa strains are stimulants, inducing the so called 'giggly' effects or 'hyper' stoned feeling ('charged'). Indica strains induce the relaxed 'baked' feeling...

Since both types induce different physiological reactions (both a stimulant and depressant), 'Marijuana' cannot be discussed as exclusively either. In extremely large amounts it's also a hallucinogen. 

It is in no way directly comparable to alcohol just because of the physiological classification. Would you compare Heroin or Barbiturates to Alcohol and try to infer a similar link?


----------



## Gaétan Guimond (Oct 28, 2010)

Marijuana (grass, pot, weed) is the common name for a crude drug made from the plant Cannabis sativa. The main mind-altering (psychoactive) ingredient in marijuana is THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), but more than 400 other chemicals also are in the plant. A marijuana "joint" (cigarette) is made from the dried particles of the plant. The amount of THC in the marijuana determines how strong its effects will be. The type of plant, the weather, the soil, the time of harvest, and other factors determine the strength of marijuana. The strength of today's marijuana is as much as ten times greater than the marijuana used in the early 1970s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrhPRr_1Klw Le numero 1 qui a fait revivre le cube est caché derrière les autres


----------



## Escher (Oct 28, 2010)

Gaétan Guimond said:


> Marijuana (grass, pot, weed) is the common name for a crude drug made from the plant Cannabis sativa. The main mind-altering (psychoactive) ingredient in marijuana is THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), but more than 400 other chemicals also are in the plant. A marijuana "joint" (cigarette) is made from the dried particles of the plant. The amount of THC in the marijuana determines how strong its effects will be. The type of plant, the weather, the soil, the time of harvest, and other factors determine the strength of marijuana. The strength of today's marijuana is as much as ten times greater than the marijuana used in the early 1970s.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrhPRr_1Klw Le numero 1 qui a fait revivre le cube est caché derrière les autres



I love you so much right now.


----------



## Stefan (Oct 28, 2010)

Yeah, we might finally have the explanation.


----------



## brunson (Oct 28, 2010)

That's awesome, Gaétan. The most comprehensible post I've ever seen you make is on Cannabis.


----------



## blucrosoft (Oct 28, 2010)

Gaétan Guimond said:


> Marijuana (grass, pot, weed) is the common name for a crude drug made from the plant Cannabis sativa. The main mind-altering (psychoactive) ingredient in marijuana is THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), but more than 400 other chemicals also are in the plant. A marijuana "joint" (cigarette) is made from the dried particles of the plant. The amount of THC in the marijuana determines how strong its effects will be. The type of plant, the weather, the soil, the time of harvest, and other factors determine the strength of marijuana. The strength of today's marijuana is as much as ten times greater than the marijuana used in the early 1970s.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrhPRr_1Klw Le numero 1 qui a fait revivre le cube est caché derrière les autres



That's nice, but not true.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 28, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> qqwref: [long paragraph about how marijuana hurts your judgment and makes you do things you'd normally be too civilized to do]


That makes sense, that alcohol mostly turns off some higher brain functions like emotion control and patience.



fatboyxpc said:


> I just feel like the negatives of alcohol and positives of pot are the only things being evaluated instead of all of them for each.


Right, because the whole argument is trying to counter the prevalent assumption that marijuana is harmful (to users, to society, to crime, whatever) as compared to the currently legal drugs i.e. alcohol. I'm sure pot has negative effects (pretty much all chemicals do) and alcohol has positive effects, but the point is to show that the arguments "pot is worse than alcohol so it should remain illegal" or "legalizing pot will hurt society / the economy" don't hold water.


Interesting question: I've heard of long-term side effects of pot smoking, such as memory problems and a higher risk of lung cancer. Has anyone done such studies on eating it? I'm sure it's not as enjoyable, but I imagine it would remove any side effects caused by the smoke itself.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 28, 2010)

Fair enough. I completely agree on your point of what people say, when simple research can do more than throw those types of arguments down the drain (such as Hadley's simple asking for one fatal accident based off marijuana use alone).

I've actually heard the ingesting marijuana is a better experience, but this is based off one friend who happens to smoke a lot and rarely eat. He says that the high is better but it obvious takes longer to reach that high. It's also more expensive and time consuming if you want to do it right (such as make bud butter vs just putting ground up pot into the batter, I've actually heard the latter is one of the most wasteful things you can do and you'd have to eat a lot of brownies to get high). This friend made a cheese spread with the butter, brownies, and then a few sandwiches. He made this solely for the "national holiday" (lol) because he wasn't able to get off work so he had to find a way to partake in the celebration while on the clock (lol sounds like not such a smart guy but he's actually incredibly smart lol). I can't really speak much about the side effects of ingestion vs inhalation though.


----------



## blade740 (Oct 28, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Interesting question: I've heard of long-term side effects of pot smoking, such as memory problems and a higher risk of lung cancer. Has anyone done such studies on eating it? I'm sure it's not as enjoyable, but I imagine it would remove any side effects caused by the smoke itself.


 
I don't have any links to studies at the moment because I'm posting from my phone, but I remember reading one that showed that "cannabis only" smokers (as in non-tobacco smokers) had slightly LOWER than average rate of lung cancer as compared to non-smokers. I'llget more info when I get home.


----------



## masterofthebass (Oct 28, 2010)

blade740 said:


> I don't have any links to studies at the moment because I'm posting from my phone, but I remember reading one that showed that "cannabis only" smokers (as in non-tobacco smokers) had slightly LOWER than average rate of lung cancer as compared to non-smokers. I'llget more info when I get home.


 
http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/2/8/759.abstract <--- actual article
http://www.alternet.org/health/142121 <--- commentary


----------



## Hadley4000 (Oct 29, 2010)

There are no cases of marijuana causing lung cancer. Also, if there were cases, wouldn't the anti drug organizations have the cancer patients on TV every 5 minutes?

And as far as marijuana killing brain cells, the study itself was done in a very biased way. They connected monkeys to gas masks, and pumped the amount of smoke from 63 joints into the mask, over a period of 5 minutes. The brain cells were dieing from suffocation. Also, a study by Xia Zhuang at the University of Vancouver showed that marijuana can actually stimulate brain cells.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 29, 2010)

Hadley4000 said:


> And as far as marijuana killing brain cells, the study itself was done in a very biased way. They connected monkeys to gas masks, and pumped the amount of smoke from 63 joints into the mask, over a period of 5 minutes. The brain cells were dieing from suffocation. Also, a study by Xia Zhuang at the University of Vancouver showed that marijuana can actually stimulate brain cells.


I haven't heard about this, but it sounds pretty silly. I guess it's just another reason not to take the conclusion of a paper at face value, eh?


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 29, 2010)

Hadley, I know about that study too. If I remember correctly the monkeys smoked over 30x their body weight. They also had no control group. I also think that a week later or something the guy who ran that study made a public apology for not conducting the study correctly. In fairness though, any form of smoke can cause lung cancer  So technically, yes, smoking marijuana leads to lung cancer haha!


----------



## Hadley4000 (Oct 29, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> Hadley, I know about that study too. If I remember correctly the monkeys smoked over 30x their body weight. They also had no control group. I also think that a week later or something the guy who ran that study made a public apology for not conducting the study correctly. In fairness though, any form of smoke can cause lung cancer  So technically, yes, smoking marijuana leads to lung cancer haha!


 

Not true. It's the chemicals in tobacco, for example, not the smoke itself. If that was the case, then why, A: are there no cases of someone developing lung cancer from purely marijuana, and B: use it as a medicine, FOR cancer?

In fact, Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA conducted a study that showed that marijuana can actually KEEP cells from becoming malignant. After studying marijuana and its effects for 30 years, this is what he had to say

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."


----------



## Cubezz (Oct 29, 2010)

I personally am fine with it, as long as it does not affect anyone's health, other than the marijuana user.
If marijauna DOES lead to lung cancer, people that breathe in the 2nd hand smoke should not have to suffer because of the actual smokers.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Oct 29, 2010)

Cubezz said:


> I personally am fine with it, as long as it does not affect anyone's health, other than the marijuana user.
> If marijauna DOES lead to lung cancer, people that breathe in the 2nd hand smoke should not have to suffer because of the actual smokers.


 


But it doesn't even effect the users health, in a negative way that is =P

And by that theory, do you think they should prohibit all tobacco products?


----------



## Innocence (Oct 29, 2010)

Hadley4000 said:


> But it doesn't even effect the users health, in a negative way that is =P
> 
> And by that theory, do you think they should prohibit all tobacco products?


 
I believe he would want it to be regulated the same way as marijuana. That is, if his reasoning is sound.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 29, 2010)

Hadley, I'm pretty sure inhaling smoke of any form leads to lung cancer


----------



## DavidWoner (Oct 29, 2010)

I'm pretty sure that you can't say something like that without evidence to back it up and expect anyone to take you seriously.


----------



## Innocence (Oct 29, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> I'm pretty sure that you can't say something like that without evidence to back it up and expect anyone to take you seriously.


 
Although, you could say "I'm pretty sure inhaling smoke of any form will get carbon in your lungs."


----------



## Hadley4000 (Oct 29, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> Hadley, I'm pretty sure inhaling smoke of any form leads to lung cancer


 


You being "Pretty sure," or a scientific study done by a man who had been studying marijuana for 30 years at UCLA. Which will I trust more?


Heck, I'll even throw in the article by the Washington Post, for good measure. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 29, 2010)

I'll rephrase my "lung cancer" to lung disease.

Hadley: I didn't mean to imply that statement negated this guy who studied for 30 years. I simply wanted to state (what I thought) was an obvious. 

David: Do you know how hard it is to get results (other than cigarette / cigar smoking) for what forms of smoke cause cancer? Either way, I'll rephrase "lung cancer" to lung disease. I was in a health class and I remember this being brought up. I remembered it had something to do with the alveoli, so I used that to help with my google search, and I found:

http://life.familyeducation.com/smoking/first-aid/48286.html

http://www.lung.ca/protect-protegez/tobacco-tabagisme/facts-faits/hurts-nuit_e.php - This article states much of the same, but also says how it can cause COPD and heart disease.

I guess I expected anybody of 18+ to have a basic understanding of human anatomy (ie smoke of any kind is bad for you!). My apologies for having such high expectations.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 29, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> I guess I expected anybody of 18+ to have a basic understanding of human anatomy (ie smoke of any kind is bad for you!).


I wouldn't class being completely sure all smoke is harmful as part of "a basic understanding of human anatomy". Put me in the group of people who aren't sure all smoke is dangerous. Smoke from a house fire is dangerous because of the toxic solids and gases released, and because of the heat; cigarette smoke is dangerous primarily because of all the toxic chemicals in the cigarettes themselves. But what about incense smoke or the smoke used in food curing and smokescreens (...or pot smoke)? I'm not sure the generalization can so easily be made.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 29, 2010)

I'm guessing you didn't bother to read either of the links I provided (primarily the first), did you? Don't forget, just because you can eat a food (smoke goes to your stomach) that has been smoked (it leaves a flavor that some of us enjoy), doesn't mean that you can inhale (smoke goes into your lungs) that smoke and receive no harmful side effects from it. I didn't make any generalization, I gave evidence how smoke stops the cilia and alveoli in the lungs from working, and how this leads to lung and heart disease.

Interestingly enough, this has brought back the alcohol point I just made. The thoughts going through my head compared to how I just presented this to you are completely different. If alcohol was here to influence this, my words would be different. This is based off judgement. I realized I could present it better rather than the first thought that comes to my head. If I had poorer judgement (for any reason) then the idea would be closer to the exact thoughts I was thinking. This could cause quite a downward spiral. This doesn't mean the alcohol made me think like that. I thought that way before, I just presented it differently.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 29, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> I'm guessing you didn't bother to read either of the links I provided (primarily the first), did you?


No, I did. But one of them was focused on the short-term effects of smoke inhalation as a traumatic event (as in, if you are in a fire or something), and the other seemed to be entirely specific to cigarette smoke.



fatboyxpc said:


> Don't forget, just because you can eat a food (smoke goes to your stomach) that has been smoked (it leaves a flavor that some of us enjoy), doesn't mean that you can inhale (smoke goes into your lungs) that smoke and receive no harmful side effects from it.


I wasn't talking about people who eat smoked food, obviously, but about the practice of smoking food itself. If all smoke was dangerous, that could be construed as a dangerous activity. Smoking food is just one reason why you'd be in contact with smoke without feeling like you are in a dangerous situation, and I'm not sure it actually would be dangerous unless you do it to the point of absolute excess.



fatboyxpc said:


> Interestingly enough, this has brought back the alcohol point I just made. The thoughts going through my head compared to how I just presented this to you are completely different. If alcohol was here to influence this, my words would be different. This is based off judgement. I realized I could present it better rather than the first thought that comes to my head. If I had poorer judgement (for any reason) then the idea would be closer to the exact thoughts I was thinking. This could cause quite a downward spiral. This doesn't mean the alcohol made me think like that. I thought that way before, I just presented it differently.


Sorry but I think that came out a bit unclear. Care to paraphrase/summarize for me?


----------



## Lorken (Oct 29, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Sorry but I think that came out a bit unclear. Care to paraphrase/summarize for me?


 
I think he means that what he writes down and what he thinks are different because he has good judgment, but if alcohol was involved, or whatever else, his judgment would not be too great and he would be writing down something that was closer to what he was actually thinking, making it hard to understand or something (lol )


----------



## Hadley4000 (Oct 29, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> I'll rephrase my "lung cancer" to lung disease.
> 
> Hadley: I didn't mean to imply that statement negated this guy who studied for 30 years. I simply wanted to state (what I thought) was an obvious.
> 
> ...





Two things though. There have not been ANY cases of lung problems or heart attacks. Aside from the fact that there are zero cases of that, even if it WERE the case, wouldn't they be all over the TV by anti drug organizations? How about YOU use common sense.

ZERO cases ever reported. Yea, that causes so many problems!


----------



## Hadley4000 (Oct 29, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> I'll rephrase my "lung cancer" to lung disease.
> 
> Hadley: I didn't mean to imply that statement negated this guy who studied for 30 years. I simply wanted to state (what I thought) was an obvious.
> 
> ...





Two things though. There have not been ANY cases of lung problems or heart attacks. Aside from the fact that there are zero cases of that, even if it WERE the case, wouldn't they be all over the TV by anti drug organizations? How about YOU use common sense.

ZERO cases ever reported. Yea, that causes so many problems!


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 29, 2010)

qqwref: The first article specifically states how smoke wears out the cilia and the alveoli. Smoking food usually involves a short duration of exposure to the smoke. It's the same thing with camp fires, I love the "smell" of camp fires, and they sure do have a lot of smoke, but I don't feel it's dangerous because I'm not sitting there for hours at a time inhaling a lot of the smoke. Sit inside a smoker, it shouldn't be long until you're coughing. The point at which you're coughing is when the cilia can't do their job (according to that article, anyway).

To recap the point about alcohol is that the initial thought and reaction I had to your post was (same point) but nothing similar to what I wrote. When I write on the forums, I often read my replies quite a few times before posting. I find that I make some spelling and/or grammar errors, don't phrase things how I wanted them to be phrased, etc. In the end, my reply looks (usually) nothing like what it started out as. If for whatever reason (like about my little 'expectation' that I had) I have some sort of snide remark, it's usually toned down when posted here. If it were to be straight from my thoughts to here, I'd be permanently banned, heh. If alcohol were involved, a lot of these thoughts would come out as thoughts, instead of making things look "correct." This is because alcohol causes judgement to be lost. If this were in real life, something that bothers me in my head (as in enough to annoy me but I don't show it), if I had x amount of alcohol in me, I would display the actual annoyance instead of hold it back. People often blame this effect on "oh it's the alcohol," when in reality it's how the person really felt, they just hold it back when they're sober.

Hadley: Haven't you heard of patient confidentiality? Even if so, I can speculate that at least one person with lung or heart disease was a recreational marijuana smoker. The kicker to this is that they probably also smoked cigarettes, if this is true, the blame will be placed on the cigarettes, not the marijuana. Science is science, though. The more exposure you have to smoke (any sort), the more chance you have at wearing out your cilia and alveoli. On the other hand, this is also true if you are in extremely humid environments, or extremely dusty environments, etc. When I said "all smoke can cause," it was meant as a (supposed to be) humorous quip, I had no intention of it going past that. If you read my earlier post, I even stated that I didn't mean for the comment to negate anything you said about marijuana. Please understand this is the second time I'm telling you that it meant nothing to negate what you said. I was asked to "back up" a claim I made, and I was a bit unsettled with the fact I thought everybody learned when they were real young to cover your nose and mouth with a wet cloth if you're stuck in a house breathing smoke (until you can get outside).


----------



## hawkmp4 (Oct 29, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> When I said "all smoke can cause," it was meant as a (supposed to be) humorous quip, I had no intention of it going past that.


You shouldn't make a claim that isn't clearly satirical in a debate thread that you're not prepared to back up.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 29, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> qqwref: The first article specifically states how smoke wears out the cilia and the alveoli. [...] The point at which you're coughing is when the cilia can't do their job (according to that article, anyway).


Well, it's talking about the lung's ability to clean itself of dust, and saying that smoke inhalation overwhelms that ability. You definitely have a short-term problem when you're coughing and having trouble breathing. But you can't really conclude that long-term smoke inhalation, at levels below that which overwhelm the cleaning system, causes long-term damage.



fatboyxpc said:


> Hadley: Haven't you heard of patient confidentiality? Even if so, I can speculate that at least one person with lung or heart disease was a recreational marijuana smoker. The kicker to this is that they probably also smoked cigarettes, if this is true, the blame will be placed on the cigarettes, not the marijuana.


And that's how it should be for now, because cigs have a proven link to cancer and heart disease whereas pot doesn't. I agree it's possible that the pot smoke made the damage more severe than it would've been otherwise, but until we see people getting cancer at a high rate from pot alone, we shouldn't think about the two equally.



fatboyxpc said:


> When I said "all smoke can cause," it was meant as a (supposed to be) humorous quip, I had no intention of it going past that.


For a supposed joke, you're defending it quite a lot 



fatboyxpc said:


> I thought everybody learned when they were real young to cover your nose and mouth with a wet cloth if you're stuck in a house breathing smoke (until you can get outside).


Look, smoke is a really complex substance ("a collection of airborne solid and liquid particulates and gases emitted when a material undergoes combustion or pyrolysis") and isn't all the same. Obviously everyone knows that smoke inhalation from a building fire is dangerous, but it isn't because it's smoke, it's because of the heat and dangerous chemicals that it contains. Not all smoke is equally dangerous (at least, it's clear that cigarette smoke is far less dangerous than smoke from a building fire) and thinking that all smoke is not equally dangerous isn't evidence of idiocy, but of understanding.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 29, 2010)

hawk: It appears that you haven't followed the comments much. I've already stated why that comment was made multiple times and I then "backed it up."

qqwref: The second article states how the alveoli become damaged and it leads to COPD. COPD is not curable. Sounds like this can be quite a damaging side effect? I mean, COPD is a deadly disease. Anyhow, obviously you can only make this argument if you say the person smokes a lot of marijuana, and that one who doesn't smoke that often has no worry. You can make the same argument for cigarette smokers too, but we need to set some timelines before making those arguments. Point is, inhaling smoke damages your lungs, regardless of what kind.

Pot now does have a proven link to help cause heart disease, however minimal it might be. I honestly don't think we'll find too many cases of people having cancer "from pot alone" because a majority of the pot smokers I know also some cigarettes. Actually, there isn't one I know personally who doesn't smoke cigarettes. 

I'm defending the joke because it got attacked, people clearly can't tell a joke even when emoticons are used.

If you truly understand smoke, then you understand that there is water vapor in smoke (and makes up quite a bit of it). The water vapor alone is enough for the cilia to try to throw out of the longs and would eventually wear them out. This now allows any other form of dust, dirt, other toxins, etc to stay in your lungs. Have you been to a waterfall? You know the misty part at the bottom where the water comes into the pool that is really misty? Go stand there and breathe, you'll find yourself coughing a lot. Do this long enough and your cilia will become worn out. Now if you go somewhere that happens to be dusty that way, has really bad air pollution, etc., you're at higher risk than somebody who hasn't damaged their lungs cleaning system.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 29, 2010)

Enough of this, you're clearly not interested in the differences between short-term and long-term effects, or in the differences between different kinds of inhalants. I shouldn't have to tell you this, but it is not scientific to extrapolate an effect between two only vaguely similar things. Water vapor? Seriously? People spend decades fishing or living near the ocean and don't have a huge risk of lung damage. The cleaning system is there for a reason, and - believe it or not! - the human body heals small damages all the time, so it doesn't mean they add up to anything big. Every time you do any serious exercise you cause microtrauma to your muscles, but that doesn't mean long-term exercising is going to eventually make your muscles fall apart. Think about what you're saying, instead of just trying to defend a point you already know is only backed by guesswork.

And trying to prevent your statement from scrutiny after you've *already been arguing about its validity* by saying it's a joke is an incredibly pathetic excuse. Take some responsibility for your own statements.


----------



## blade740 (Oct 29, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> qqwref: The second article states how the alveoli become damaged and it leads to COPD.


 
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/180/8/814

"Smoking both tobacco and marijuana synergistically increased the risk of respiratory symptoms and COPD. Smoking only marijuana was not associated with an increased risk of respiratory symptoms or COPD."

Nice try, though.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 29, 2010)

I said before now it was a joke, and hence the tongue smiley. Do you not know how to use emoticons? Do you not understand them? Come to think of it, I haven't seen you type any emoticons, but I also haven't read all 3,170 of your posts (and then however many you have in off topic dicussion / other forums (if any) don't contribute to post count). This could now clear up my thought, maybe you really don't know what they mean! I probably could have saved myself a lot of trouble. Sigh, you win some you lose some, right? That alcohol point I brought back up just a bit ago, yeah, it just happened again. In the event you missed the obvious, the filter is slowly dwindling down.

Have you been to the bottom of a waterfall where it is very misty? I don't mean an ocean mist where it's just cool (temperature) and hazy, I mean misty like you get wet. It's like when you go to a state fair and they have those water sprayers next to fans. Your end up looking like your sweating but it's all water. At waterfalls it's thicker than that. You could probably also go up to one of those sprayers at a fair and get the same reaction, but I'm not sure as I haven't tried it. I'm guessing you haven't been to this part of a waterfall.

I understand how the body heals damage, you could have made that conclusion had you read the part about how if you don't inhale smoke often, it's probably going to be okay (because you might damage the cilia and alveoli now, but they'll probably heal from it). Although I do know (from knowing about COPD) that after you cause so much lung damage, it's not repairable anymore (just as COPD is not curable).

Fishing? Really? I'm not sure where you live but around here the only place to fish is a lake (not even rivers, usually). Even if we include all bodies of water, the only body of water that gets nearly as misty as the waterfall I was talking about, is the specific area of a waterfall that I previously mentioned.

I'm not sure you understand...if you do anything that wears down your cilia and alveoli, you enhance your risk at getting lung disease. If you do this activity often enough, you're now risking permanent damage to your lungs. Permanent damage to your lungs greatly increases your chances at getting lung (and heart) disease. The dosage obviously varies depending on the activity, but fact does remain fact, no matter how you may say I'm trying to extrapolate.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Oct 29, 2010)

Okay, now you're really just not making sense at all. Water falls? Also, don't be degrading to QQ. Smilies have nothing to do with this. He may not use that many, but to not even understand what one is would make someone completely retarded, and he is one of the smarter people on here. As said before. If it's a joke, why are you defending it so much?

Okay. Short and sweet. Chemicals in tobacco smoke causes cancer. Marijuana smoke can prevent cells from becoming malignant.

Cases of reported cancer is not what patient confidentiality is. What that means is than you can't call a doctor and say "Is John Smith sick?" or something to that effect. How would we know the extensive number of alcohol and tobacco related deaths if that were the case?


----------



## blade740 (Oct 29, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> I understand how the body heals damage, you could have made that conclusion had you read the part about how if you don't inhale smoke often, it's probably going to be okay (because you might damage the cilia and alveoli now, but they'll probably heal from it). Although I do know (from knowing about COPD) that after you cause so much lung damage, it's not repairable anymore (just as COPD is not curable).
> 
> ...
> 
> I'm not sure you understand...if you do anything that wears down your cilia and alveoli, you enhance your risk at getting lung disease. If you do this activity often enough, you're now risking permanent damage to your lungs. Permanent damage to your lungs greatly increases your chances at getting lung (and heart) disease. The dosage obviously varies depending on the activity, but fact does remain fact, no matter how you may say I'm trying to extrapolate.


 
There is a difference between long-term and short-term damage. Short-term damage is damage that is completely repaired by the body. Long-term damage is partially repaired, but eventually builds up into permanent problems. 

Cannabis smoke has been shown to have short-term effects on lung performance. It has NOT been proven to have long-term effects. In fact, the link I just posted clearly stated that smoking cannabis alone does NOT lead to COPD. You ARE extrapolating. You are making a logical leap from short-term to long-term damage, contrary to all evidence..


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 29, 2010)

Hadley, I said that to qqwref because I felt the emoticon alone was enough to show I was just poking fun. I ended up defending it because people acted like I was being completely serious about it, and again, I thought everybody learned when they were younger not to breathe in smoke. I really thought the gesture of the statement was obvious. He completely disregards the fact I had that tongue smiley included in the *original post*.

Andrew: Did you read that full article? "Short-term, heavy marijuana smoking among young adults can worsen lung function. Long-term marijuana smoking has been linked to an increase in respiratory symptoms." So you found me one study that says marijuana doesn't affect lung function in adults 40 years old or greater, congratulations. Not everybody (on earth) is 40+. I also linked you to two articles that say smoke (not specifically cigarette smoke, but smoke period) wears out your lungs. I suggest you go read those. There's no extrapolation here: If you wear down your cilia, you will wear down your alveoli. If these become permanently damaged, you increase your chances of lung and heart disease. Go read those articles already.

I can even go ahead and say we can't take all papers coming to a conclusion at face value, can we? qqwref already made that statement. Furthermore, with a spirometer, the more you use it (in a short period of time, say, a couple minutes), the harder it is to keep expelling air. Since I don't know the exact way they said "smoke a cigarette, blow into this tube" we can't conclude for certain they didn't sway the way the test is.

Here's another interesting points about the article: They measure cigarettes in packs, and marijuana in joints. Since when did one joint become equivalent to a whole pack? Now I'm unsure of the average joint size, but most joints I've seen have been physically smaller than a cigarette in girt and length.That means you smoke 20x as much tobacco cigarettes as you do marijuana cigarettes. I'm not trying to say that cigarettes are good for you, but these "samples" don't seem to compare correctly. They define a lifetime history of tobacco smoking as 365 cigarettes, but lifetime marijuana smoking as only 50? This really doesn't seem right.

Putting that aside though, science still stands on: wear down your cillia, wear down your alveoli, cause permanent damage, greater chance of lung disease.


----------



## blade740 (Oct 29, 2010)

I read both articles, as a matter of fact. The first was about the effects of heavy smoke inhalation (as in trapped in a burning house smoke inhalation: several minutes of constant inhalation, as opposed to one breath every 30 seconds with a high smoke content.) If you lived in a bong, this might apply. The article even says that your body cleans small amounts of smoke on its own until it gets overwhelmed. You would have to perform specific testing to determine at which point cannabis smoke overwhelms the cillia. 

The second article, as pointed out, is specifically about tobacco smoke. You see, smoke content varies depending on the substance burned. You can not assume that tobacco smoke has the same chemical composition as cannabis smoke, and so you can't assume they have similar effects on the body without specific tests.

The only reason thefrequency is measured in joints and packs is for convenience. Most tobacco smokers smoke at levels measured in packs per day. As a matter of fact, most cannabis users don't smoke exclusively joints, but joints per day is the most understandable metric for non-smokers. Actually, joint size varies greatly from person to persom anyway, so it's not clear exactly how much is being smoked.

Likewise, the fact that they are over 40 is simply a part of the test. There's no way to test long-term effects in younger smokers, is there? That in no way means that those over 40 are at a lower risk than younger people.


----------



## Edward (Oct 29, 2010)

No to jump into this, but Fatboy, I can't tell wether you're for or against Marijuana :I


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 29, 2010)

blade740 said:


> You would have to perform specific testing to determine at which point cannabis smoke overwhelms the cillia.



So you're admitting it will overwhelm the cilia, and that I'm right? Also, thanks for rephrasing what I said.



fatboyxpc said:


> The dosage obviously varies depending on the activity, but fact does remain fact, no matter how you may say I'm trying to extrapolate.



Edward: I stated earlier (a few pages ago) that I'm for marijuana. This all happened because I made a little joke and people got OMFG SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE IT on me.


----------



## endless_akatsuki (Oct 29, 2010)

In general, if I make jokes that someone doesn't get, I tell that them that I was kidding and drop the subject, as there is a clear misunderstanding.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Oct 29, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> most joints I've seen have been physically smaller than a cigarette in girt and length.




Depends on who rolls it 

Articles HAVE been posted here about marijuana not effecting lung function. If you want to be close minded enough to not actually read articles that have proven this, then maybe you shouldn't even be in this debate. 

Here, I'll post a few more for shits and grins.

Although cannabis has been smoked widely in Western countries for more than four decades, there have been no reported cases of lung cancer or emphysema attributed to marijuana.
I suspect that a day's breathing in any city with poor air quality poses more of a threat than inhaling a day's dose -- which for many ailments is just a portion of a joint -- of marijuana."


"In a convenience sample of 339 residents of Wellington, New Zealand, aged 18–70 years (mean age 43.4) comprising nonsmokers and smokers of either marijuana only, tobacco only or both substances, the authors reported that there was no association between use of marijuana and abnormalities in lung function (including lung volume and diffusing capacity)."


----------



## blade740 (Oct 30, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> So you're admitting it will overwhelm the cilia, and that I'm right? Also, thanks for rephrasing what I said.
> 
> Yes, but that doesn't mean this level of smoke inhalation can occur from normal smoking. Remember the monkey/gas mask experiment?


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 30, 2010)

Lol Hadley, yes, I've seen some really big blunts (I saw one the size of a cigar once, but on youtube there's a video of a really big one). I'm not really being close minded, I'm just showing "scientific proof" that all smoke can wear out the cilia, which starts a chain reaction what wore out the cilia continued to happen. As the guy 'suspects' about breathing in a city with poor air quality, that is also true. Who decides what a day's dose is, anyway? That article Andrew Nelson linked to provided a clear bias toward cigarettes in that study (Really, to have a cigarette smoking history you have to smoke 6x as many cigarettes as joints, then to measure how much you smoke it's 1pack of cigarettes to every joint? Really?). You're second is interesting though, because it is directly opposite of what the article said that Andrew Nelson linked to (it directly stated marijuana use in younger age does lead to lung issues).

All I'm saying is, it's scientifically clear that all smoke wears out your alveoli. This is true for a lot of substances though. The dosage does vary from substance to substance, but the point is enough of any form of smoke is enough to give you lung issues. One (or both) of the articles I linked to stated that coughing is one of the ways the lungs try to get rid of this stuff. How many of you coughed when you first started smoking (pot or cigarettes)? That's a sign of your cilia trying to get rid of it. I still see a lot of people take too big of a hit off a joint/bong and they still cough (and they're seasons smokers!) If the argument "but I don't cough anymore" comes up, you can build a tolerance to things, that doesn't mean your cilia aren't getting worn out just because you are used to that "feeling".

Andrew: At what point did I say that it would occur from "normal smoking?" I already stated that it's *eventually* it will happen. Also, what point is that, exactly? One joint per week? Per day? Per hour? Your article says they measure cigarettes by the pack, yet marijuana by the joint.

Even putting all this aside, and attempting to get back to marijuana specifics: All this can be avoided if you just eat it. Hadley, I'm sure you've got stories about how much better/worse (high wise) to eat it rather than smoke it.


----------



## Cubezz (Oct 30, 2010)

Hadley4000 said:


> But it doesn't even effect the users health, in a negative way that is =P
> 
> And by that theory, do you think they should prohibit all tobacco products?


 
I meant if it DOES, which so far, it has not (as far as I know?)
You win >_>


----------



## eastamazonantidote (Oct 30, 2010)

As much as I'd like to be indifferent on this, I must look at this legally. Congress has specifically said that marijuana is an illegal drug. Article VI of the United States Constitution gives the federal government control over matters it rules over. Soooo...why is this even an option? The initiative system is a great idea gone horribly wrong, and this is just one example of the issues that face our system of government. After all, those in charge must be accountable for their actions. But who can hold voters accountable? No one. Congress must guarantee a republican form of government to every state, which, according to James Madison, means a system to representatives for the people. We are not a direct democracy and should stop thinking of ourselves as one, as it was ruled very early on that a democracy on such a large scale would be a complete failure. The Supreme Court has ruled that the definition of 'republic' is too political to rule on and thus lets everyone decide for themselves. When Arizona was admitted to the USA it came with the initiative system and was accepted, indicating that Congress thought that it was perfectly legal. But the initiative system undermines the entirety of out social contract: that government is there for the people and is held accountable for the people. To reiterate, no one holds the people accountable. So as much as I don't really care what happens with the legality of marijuana, I can support neither the initiative system nor the laws it hopes to promulgate.

*Someone should fact check this. I don't know if everything's right.*


----------



## blade740 (Oct 30, 2010)

Those powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the constitution are reserved by the states. The feds will probably try to use the interstate commerce clause to regulate this, but at the end of the day it'll be up to the supreme court to decide whether it even applies.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Oct 30, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> Even putting all this aside, and attempting to get back to marijuana specifics: All this can be avoided if you just eat it. Hadley, I'm sure you've got stories about how much better/worse (high wise) to eat it rather than smoke it.




Very different highs, which can be used to medicate in different ways. You can't really say what's better or worse. If you are using it for recreation, the setting might depend on which one you would want to go for. Ingestion gives you more of a body high, and smoking gives you more of a head high(Depending on if it's indica or sativa). Then, we can talk about other safe ways, such as vaporizing. In vaporizers, it heats the weed below combustion point, and releases the chemicals into a vapor. VERY good on lungs, very strong, long lasting high.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 30, 2010)

Interesting. Are they expensive or something? I've heard about them but I don't think I've ever seen them used. I mean, I don't partake in this recreational activity (but plenty of my friends do, as we discussed that evening at Lexington), but even still I haven't seen it, only heard about it. It seems like it would be the way to go.


----------



## blade740 (Oct 30, 2010)

Vaporizers are fairly expensive ($100 for a cheap one up to maybe $500 for a fancy one) One interesting thing is that while THC, the main psychoactive compound in cannabis, is vaporized, some other cannabinoids (primarily CBD) evaporate at higher temperatures. This is why the high from a vaporizer is different from combustion.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Oct 30, 2010)

eastamazonantidote said:


> As much as I'd like to be indifferent on this, I must look at this legally. Congress has specifically said that marijuana is an illegal drug. Article VI of the United States Constitution gives the federal government control over matters it rules over.
> *Someone should fact check this. I don't know if everything's right.*


 
Read the 10th amendment.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Oct 30, 2010)

blade740 said:


> Vaporizers are fairly expensive ($100 for a cheap one up to maybe $500 for a fancy one) One interesting thing is that while THC, the main psychoactive compound in cannabis, is vaporized, some other cannabinoids (primarily CBD) evaporate at higher temperatures. This is why the high from a vaporizer is different from combustion.


 

Well, that's where it gets complicated. There are some that look like pipes, where you use a lighter, but the flame never touches the weed, so it works in a similar way, but sometimes it will combust since you can't control the heat.

As far as what most people consider vaporizers, they can start at $60ish, but many of those use metal heating coils, which are dangerous. Safe ones start at around $80, and can go up to $700. Worth every cent, though.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 30, 2010)

$80 really isn't bad seeings how you spend that in weed in less than a month. $150 for a "better than safe" one is still very do-able. Interesting. I guess putting that much money down though when you can just buy a pipe, some papers, or drink a soda and use the can has some sort of argument.

Have you had those synthetic THC pills yet?


----------



## Hadley4000 (Oct 30, 2010)

But it really saves weed in the long run. You need much less than smoking a joint or a bowl.

I believe you are talking about Marinol, which is common to get to cancer patients, but it doesn't actually get you high.


----------



## eastamazonantidote (Nov 1, 2010)

blade740 said:


> Those powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the constitution are reserved by the states. The feds will probably try to use the interstate commerce clause to regulate this, but at the end of the day it'll be up to the supreme court to decide whether it even applies.



In the last medical marijuana dealings it was determined that Congress can regulate it, so it already applies.



Ethan Rosen said:


> Read the 10th amendment.


 
Uh...It has already been determined that Congress can regulate drug use because it affects interstate commerce, so the 10th doesn't apply. Also, read the articles you post if you're trying to make a point: the last paragraph of the commerce clause section is all about medical marijuana use in California and why Congress can regulate it. The 10th may be nice, but the commerce clause reigns supreme.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 1, 2010)

eastamazonantidote said:


> We are not a direct democracy and should stop thinking of ourselves as one, as it was ruled very early on that a democracy on such a large scale would be a complete failure.


There's no reason that a democracy on a large scale wouldn't work (I mean, hey, it already does if you look at statewide elections, considering that some 20 states now have populations greater than that of the entire US in 1800), except for having problems counting. I imagine actually counting up the votes would have been a serious problem in the 1800s, but it isn't now; the only counting problems we have are various Republicans messing with the voting machines. It'd be nice to have laws that weren't passed based on Congressional lobbyists and party voting blocs.

Democracy doesn't really work anyway, at least not while the vast majority of people don't really understand the issues. I think most people just end up voting for what their party or church tell them they should like. Thus you get millions of people who don't know what pot is like but think it ought to be illegal, or who don't understand homosexuality but think it should be discriminated against, or who choose one candidate because he's from their party rather than because they would make a better leader, or whatever. You'd get better results if you only allowed certain people to vote.


----------



## Rpotts (Nov 1, 2010)

Volcano Vaporizer

The finest vaporizer on the market currently. Runs you around $500 to $700. Some of the best highs I've had have from those. Anyone I introduce it to goes ballistic when they first use it (not necessarily from the high, just out of amazement.) The simplicity, the purity... it really can't be beat.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Nov 1, 2010)

Rpotts said:


> Volcano Vaporizer
> 
> The finest vaporizer on the market currently. Runs you around $500 to $700. Some of the best highs I've had have from those. Anyone I introduce it to goes ballistic when they first use it (not necessarily from the high, just out of amazement.) The simplicity, the purity... it really can't be beat.




Over rated. They are better party vapes because of the bag, but it isn't NEAR worth the price. A cheaper vape works in the exact same way. The only difference is if it's a hose or a bag. They still give you just the purity, but save you a lot of money. And I think that a box vape is more simple. Turn it on, breathe in the hose. The Volcanos turn it on, attach the bag, wait for it to fill, change the mouth piece.


----------



## Rpotts (Nov 1, 2010)

goddamnit i always hit reply to thread when I'm done typing and it deletes all my text GRRRRRRRR

Not over rated, probably over priced. In my opinion a better machine than most traditional pencil box vaporizers, including nice vapor bros. Excellent heating element which produces thick vapor without torching the buds, in my experience thicker vapor than a vapor bros without starting to burn the chron. Slightly more complex than a box vape, but still very simple. Also, I find that some inexperienced smokers have trouble getting the right suction through a whip, but with the volcano you breathe as normal. Slight advantage. Also it is much easier with multiple people, simply tossing a bag around a room versus having someone man the vape/pass around a box that's plugged into the wall. 

Don't get me wrong, the Vapor Bros box vape is a good device, I just prefer the volc.


----------



## amostay2004 (Nov 1, 2010)

meh, tried some weed in Madrid. Apparently it takes some practice to get stoned..I didn´t feel anything


----------



## Hadley4000 (Nov 1, 2010)

Rpotts said:


> goddamnit i always hit reply to thread when I'm done typing and it deletes all my text GRRRRRRRR
> 
> Not over rated, probably over priced. In my opinion a better machine than most traditional pencil box vaporizers, including nice vapor bros. Excellent heating element which produces thick vapor without torching the buds, in my experience thicker vapor than a vapor bros without starting to burn the chron. Slightly more complex than a box vape, but still very simple. Also, I find that some inexperienced smokers have trouble getting the right suction through a whip, but with the volcano you breathe as normal. Slight advantage. Also it is much easier with multiple people, simply tossing a bag around a room versus having someone man the vape/pass around a box that's plugged into the wall.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, the Vapor Bros box vape is a good device, I just prefer the volc.


 


Try a Silver Surfer, then get back to me on whip vapes


----------



## Hadley4000 (Nov 2, 2010)

The vote is today!


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Nov 3, 2010)

12 more minutes until the poles close


----------



## Hadley4000 (Nov 3, 2010)

So Californians would rather drug dealers have billions of dollars than the economy have billions. Interesting...


----------



## Weston (Nov 3, 2010)

My parents both votes yes on prop 19.
So proud.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 3, 2010)

Ethan Rosen said:


> 12 more minutes until the poles close


 
****, I always wanted to visit the Arctic. I guess I'll never have the chance now.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Nov 3, 2010)

Spoke too soon. I read that it had been declared no, but it hasn't yet.

But, BAD sign, Humboldt county said no...


----------



## oprah62 (Nov 3, 2010)

Both my parents also voted yes.


----------



## RyanO (Nov 3, 2010)

another victory for irrational fear, nice


----------



## Hadley4000 (Nov 3, 2010)

RyanO said:


> another victory for irrational fear, nice


 


> "We are turning into a nation of whimpering slaves to Fear—fear of war, fear of poverty, fear of random terrorism, fear of getting down-sized or fired because of the plunging economy, fear of getting evicted for bad debts or suddenly getting locked up in a military detention camp on vague charges of being a Terrorist sympathizer."




- Hunter S. Thompson.


Wonder what HE would think about this.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Nov 3, 2010)

I am sad as well. There goes asking for a trip to California for my birthday.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Nov 3, 2010)

qqwref said:


> ****, I always wanted to visit the Arctic. I guess I'll never have the chance now.


 
LOLOLOLOLOLOL


----------



## goatseforever (Nov 3, 2010)

Lol all the potheads are too busy getting baked to go vote.


----------



## drewsopchak (Nov 5, 2010)

medical marijuana is used to help people suffering from anorexia yet i havent heard of marijuana making people fat like candy.


----------



## izovire (Nov 5, 2010)

All of this makes me want to smoke it for the first time!! I'm like really close to Denver... hmmmm....


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Nov 5, 2010)

izovire said:


> All of this makes me want to smoke it for the first time!! I'm like really close to Denver... hmmmm....


 
NONONONONONONO

Stay above the influence, son.


----------



## izovire (Nov 5, 2010)

theanonymouscuber said:


> NONONONONONONO
> 
> Stay above the influence, son.


 
Yessir!


----------



## Senkoy (Nov 5, 2010)

There were a lot of potential benefits but i hate potheads so i'm glad it didn't get passed. It probably will eventually. I actually think more stuff should be made illegal. Like cigarrete smoking. It increases air polution and second hand smoke can be more toxic than the crap they're sucking down themselves. Also alchohol but people are too pathetic to go without it, that's why prohibition didn't work. I hate people.


----------



## aronpm (Nov 5, 2010)

Senkoy said:


> i hate potheads


Why?


----------



## Innocence (Nov 5, 2010)

aronpm said:


> Why?


 
Simple.


Senkoy said:


> I hate people



Senkoy hates people
Potheads = people
Senkoy hates potheads.

Q.E.D He doesn't need a reason specific to potheads.


----------



## amostay2004 (Nov 5, 2010)

Hating potheads is not a reason at all to go against this proposition because whether or not marijuana is legalised, people can get hold of them easily. The whole purpose of this proposition is to have better control over the availability of marijuana. 

It's the same reasoning behind sex education. If you teach your children about sex, they will be aware and know what is right to do. If you keep it from them, they will just be more curious and learn it from the wrong resources.


----------



## riffz (Nov 5, 2010)

Stefan said:


> Yeah, we might finally have the explanation.


 
I irl lolled when I read this, which is bad because I'm sitting in an office cubicle.


----------



## Senkoy (Nov 5, 2010)

I hate some people more than others, like pothead, 

The reason i hate potheads is cause i have really bad short term memory, and i DESPISE it. So. Damn. Much. I forget things instantly. It pisses me off. And yet there are people who do it to themselves on purpose and for what? To get yourself all stupid? Why? Seriously why? How could it possibly be worth damaging your mind? Here I am with awful short term memory never having smoked a single joint in my life and other people do it to themselves for stupid reasons. Pisses me off.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Nov 5, 2010)

Senkoy, you do realize secondhand smoke is no different than "first hand" smoke from a joint, right? The reason it's called secondhand smoke is because it's unfiltered.


----------



## Andreaillest (Nov 5, 2010)

Senkoy said:


> I hate some people more than others, like pothead,
> 
> The reason i hate potheads is cause i have really bad short term memory, and i DESPISE it. So. Damn. Much. I forget things instantly. It pisses me off. And yet there are people who do it to themselves on purpose and for what? To get yourself all stupid? Why? Seriously why? How could it possibly be worth damaging your mind? Here I am with awful short term memory never having smoked a single joint in my life and other people do it to themselves for stupid reasons. Pisses me off.



I'm sure they are well aware of what they are doing with their bodies. You shouldn't hate a group of people just because of THEIR decisions and what THEY decide to do with their bodies. It shouldn't effect or bother you. It's their choice.

Also, marijuana can effect people differently. Some people have no problems using it, others might. Some might get short term memory loss, others won't.


----------



## Senkoy (Nov 6, 2010)

fatboyxpc, when i mentioned second hand smoke i was referring to cigarettes. I don't know about joints though.

AndreaBananas, i agree, i shouldn't, but i still do. They just seem worthless to me.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Nov 6, 2010)

Senkoy said:


> fatboyxpc, when i mentioned second hand smoke i was referring to cigarettes. I don't know about joints though.
> 
> AndreaBananas, i agree, i shouldn't, but i still do. They just seem worthless to me.


 


Second hand from weed is totally benign. Not enough to get you high, and doesn't cause lung damage. Nothing but a sweet smell .

Worthless? I think you'll notice that most potheads really do accomplish a lot. Tommy Chong, though HILARIOUS, really gave a bad name to the potheads. He(And along with movies like Dazed and Confused), really tried to put out the "Wow hey man" style of pot head. But, why would movies show people sitting around having perfectly normal conversations? That would be boring. People think of stoners in the "Wow groovy dude" light because of movies and TV. That's what will sell, not someone chatting about life while eating Cheetos.


----------



## Johan444 (Nov 6, 2010)

One spliff a day keep the evil away ~~~~~~~~~~ *_____________*


----------



## Hadley4000 (Nov 6, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> One spliff a day keep the evil away ~~~~~~~~~~ *_____________*


 


Except that spliffs suck =P. No tobacco should be used.


----------



## Johan444 (Nov 6, 2010)

Hadley4000 said:


> Except that spliffs suck =P. No tobacco should be used.


 
Ya, a friend told me Americans don't mix :]


----------



## Hadley4000 (Nov 6, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> Ya, a friend told me Americans don't mix :]


 

Only if trying to be secretive, so that the tobacco smell covers it up. Some people here do it, but the average J is just pot.


----------



## AngeL (Nov 6, 2010)

izovire said:


> All of this makes me want to smoke it for the first time!! I'm like really close to Denver... hmmmm....


 

Try it! I honestly think everyone should try it once, even if they never do afterwards. It's really an experience unlike any other. That's part of why stoners seem so weird to non-smokers: You can't really put the feeling into words so trying to describe it to someone who hasn't also felt the same thing seems stupid.

If you try it once and say it isn't for you, then fantastic. The only thing you lost was a couple of hours that you didn't enjoy. If you like it, then you've discovered a great new way to have fun with some friends. Seems like a win-win to me. I don't know how anyone can get through life never even trying it ONCE. Sheer curiosity would be too overwhelming for me.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Nov 6, 2010)

AngeL said:


> Try it! I honestly think everyone should try it once, even if they never do afterwards. It's really an experience unlike any other. That's part of why stoners seem so weird to non-smokers: You can't really put the feeling into words so trying to describe it to someone who hasn't also felt the same thing seems stupid.
> 
> If you try it once and say it isn't for you, then fantastic. The only thing you lost was a couple of hours that you didn't enjoy. If you like it, then you've discovered a great new way to have fun with some friends. Seems like a win-win to me. I don't know how anyone can get through life never even trying it ONCE. Sheer curiosity would be too overwhelming for me.


 


However, a LOT of people don't get stoned on their first time smoking. So if someone tries it and doesn't get high, they shouldn't write it off.


----------



## Tyson (Nov 6, 2010)

I don't really follow this logic of "trying it" because you should try everything once. There are certainly things that I don't think need to be tried once. People should just make their own decisions whether or not they want to try something.

With this being said, of course, if you haven't tried it, I don't think you really have as much of a right to go off ranting about how destructive something is, or how bad it is. It's like non-drinkers saying that alcohol is so bad that it should be banned.

Fast-food probably causes more deaths than alcohol. I don't have the numbers on this, but it would be interesting to find. Heart-disease being the leading cause of death, obesity is number two and closing in. I would say alcohol, tobacco cigarettes, and fast-food are all much more harmful to society than marijuana. If it's government's role to tell its citizens what it can and cannot do for health reasons (and I don't believe it is), then those things should go first.



Senkoy said:


> I hate some people more than others, like pothead,
> 
> The reason i hate potheads is cause i have really bad short term memory, and i DESPISE it. So. Damn. Much. I forget things instantly. It pisses me off. And yet there are people who do it to themselves on purpose and for what? To get yourself all stupid? Why? Seriously why? How could it possibly be worth damaging your mind? Here I am with awful short term memory never having smoked a single joint in my life and other people do it to themselves for stupid reasons. Pisses me off.


 
Hmm, yeah? What's your 3x3 BLD time? I'm very confident I can find you a pot smoker who's faster than you. (3x3, which I find to be an event which highlights the ability of short-term memory). Making such a generalization is simply ignorant, and unfair, and is a sign that no one should take your statements with any credence. Plenty of pot heads are productive members of society. Plenty of drinkers are productive, and so are smokers.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 6, 2010)

Tyson said:


> if you haven't tried it, I don't think you really have as much of a right to go off ranting about how destructive something is, or how bad it is. It's like non-drinkers saying that alcohol is so bad that it should be banned.



Bad example. You don't need to drink to be affected by drunk people. If you're affected or potentially affected enough, I'd say you do have a right to rant against it and request a ban. More interestingly, I don't see how drinking could give you that right.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Nov 7, 2010)

Tyson said:


> Plenty of pot heads are productive members of society. Plenty of drinkers are productive, and so are smokers.


 


That's the point I was trying to get across. Some of the smartest people I know smoke everyday. Sure, pot makes you dumb. For 2 hours. 

There are no proven studies(Except for one that was conducted in a stupid manner, and later apologized for by the scientist for not actually proving anything from marijuana itself) that show brain damage. On the contrary, (I might have said this already), Dr. Xia Zhaung on University of Vancouver proved that it has the ability to STIMULATE brain cells rather than damage them.

The only memory loss it really causes is brief short term. Not lasting short term. For example, you can sober up and have no idea where you put your remote, but that isn't an ongoing side effect. Also, as Tyson said, alcohol, tobacco and fast food all have much higher death rates than marijuana. Largely due to the fact that no one has died from marijuana use alone. You would have to smoke 1 joint every 5 seconds for 20 minutes to be able to reach a fatal dose.

And again, if it had long term effects like memory loss, lung cancer, emphysema, wouldn't organizations like DARE have them broadcast every 5 minutes?


----------



## Senkoy (Nov 7, 2010)

Seriously, there's only been one study? I highly doubt that. And so what if there are smart potheads? Who knows how much smarter they'd be if they didn't do that crap.

Also, when i say potheads, i don't mean everyone who smokes weed. I'm referring to the equivalent of an alcoholic, that all they do is smoke and are high all the time. But i do agree a lot of other stuff is worse than weed that's legal, like alcohol.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 7, 2010)

I do agree that research seems to indicate that THC is at least not more damaging than alcohol when used often, or to excess. However, I do wonder at the effects of a child growing up in a pot smoking household and being exposed to the smoke for their entire formative developmental years. I don't like the fact that pot smoke can be be breathed in by the non-smokers in the room. And for those saying you don't get high off it, you certainly can get a contact buzz. I absolutely hate getting this feeling when you want to remain not high.

Alcohol drinking does not create the effects of the alcohol in the non-users in the room, THC does.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Nov 7, 2010)

Senkoy said:


> Seriously, there's only been one study? I highly doubt that. And so what if there are smart potheads? Who knows how much smarter they'd be if they didn't do that crap.
> 
> Also, when i say potheads, i don't mean everyone who smokes weed. I'm referring to the equivalent of an alcoholic, that all they do is smoke and are high all the time. But i do agree a lot of other stuff is worse than weed that's legal, like alcohol.


 


It was a study done on monkeys, where they had gas masks attached to their faces with smoke pumped in to it. It was suffocating the poor little fella's, and the scientists later apologized for a biased study. Since then completely contradictory studies have been recorded. 

Also, for a pothead to be compared to an alcoholic, I think there must some some big similarities.
Not addictive 
Does not cause long term physical harm
Does not keep you from functioning

Some people are VERY functional while high. Not everyone sits around, listens to music and laughs. Most people are more creative. A lot of potheads do very well in classes stoned, some write better stoned.

Hell, one could argue that too much COFFEE could make someone have a harder time in class. Makes you jittery, sometimes lack focus, and anxious at high doses(Not to knock caffeine, I do love the stuff). But weed can make you take in information in a different way, process it in a more creative manner, and makes boring classes more fun!


I don't really think that the effects of alcohol and weed should really be compared. As the master, the legend, the king, Bob Marley said.



> Alcohol justs gets you drunk, it don't make you meditate, just make you drunk. Herb is more a consciousness.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Nov 7, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> I do agree that research seems to indicate that THC is at least not more damaging than alcohol when used often, or to excess. However, I do wonder at the effects of a child growing up in a pot smoking household and being exposed to the smoke for their entire formative developmental years. I don't like the fact that pot smoke can be be breathed in by the non-smokers in the room. And for those saying you don't get high off it, you certainly can get a contact buzz. I absolutely hate getting this feeling when you want to remain not high.
> 
> Alcohol drinking does not create the effects of the alcohol in the non-users in the room, THC does.




It takes a LOT to get a contact buzz. You'd pretty much have to hotbox with someone. I've been in tiny rooms with people when they were smoking and I wasn't, and nothing at all. You simply aren't breathing in a high enough concentration to actually get a real effect from it. 9/10 contact highs are placebo effect. 

The biggest thing it gives you is an exposer to a sweet smell.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 7, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> However, I do wonder at the effects of a child growing up in a pot smoking household and being exposed to the smoke for their entire formative developmental years. I don't like the fact that pot smoke can be be breathed in by the non-smokers in the room. And for those saying you don't get high off it, you certainly can get a contact buzz. I absolutely hate getting this feeling when you want to remain not high.
> 
> Alcohol drinking does not create the effects of the alcohol in the non-users in the room, THC does.


Yeah, but smoking has this effect too (and remember the idea of comparing to alcohol is to say that if alcohol should be legal then marijuana should also be, so the exact same idea applies to nicotine). I knew someone who grew up with a heavy smoker and didn't at all mind secondhand smoke, where I find it very annoying.

I'd consider this effect not necessarily a problem of the drug (since pot can be used without getting smoke all over the place, and similarly nicotine can be ingested in ways other than smoking) but of the inconsiderateness of certain users of it.


----------



## Tyson (Nov 8, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> I do agree that research seems to indicate that THC is at least not more damaging than alcohol when used often, or to excess. However, I do wonder at the effects of a child growing up in a pot smoking household and being exposed to the smoke for their entire formative developmental years. I don't like the fact that pot smoke can be be breathed in by the non-smokers in the room. And for those saying you don't get high off it, you certainly can get a contact buzz. I absolutely hate getting this feeling when you want to remain not high.
> 
> Alcohol drinking does not create the effects of the alcohol in the non-users in the room, THC does.


 
I would say yes, this is true. When your neighbors drink, you don't have to drink with them. But when they smoke, you inevitably get some of that. And I don't feel that's fair. It would make more sense to me that drinking is allowed in public, and not smoking.

As for Stefan's comment that you don't have to drink alcohol to be affected by drunks, I would say you're not being affected by alcohol. If some guy drinks, and he's an a$$hole, then it's his responsible, and not the alcohol's. I'd say people can drink as much as they want. But they are completely responsible for their actions. So some guy who is a complete a$$hole while being drunk, I guess my point would be to blame the person, and not to blame the person only with alcohol. Just because he sobers up it doesn't make him less of an a$$hole.

We're all responsible for our own actions, and alcohol is never an excuse for anything.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Nov 8, 2010)

Tyson said:


> I would say yes, this is true. When your neighbors drink, you don't have to drink with them. But when they smoke, you inevitably get some of that. And I don't feel that's fair. It would make more sense to me that drinking is allowed in public, and not smoking.
> 
> As for Stefan's comment that you don't have to drink alcohol to be affected by drunks, I would say you're not being affected by alcohol. If some guy drinks, and he's an a$$hole, then it's his responsible, and not the alcohol's. I'd say people can drink as much as they want. But they are completely responsible for their actions. So some guy who is a complete a$$hole while being drunk, I guess my point would be to blame the person, and not to blame the person only with alcohol. Just because he sobers up it doesn't make him less of an a$$hole.
> 
> We're all responsible for our own actions, and alcohol is never an excuse for anything.




I don't know if I 100% agree with that. I know some people who are super chill and nice when sober, but become angry and jerks when drunk. Drugs(And yes, alcohol IS a drug) can bring out emotions that would not be experienced when sober.

I tend to sort of lean towards the not smoking in public idea, however, to an extent. If legalized, I think there should be specific areas(Like smokers sections) where people would be allowed to go light up. Since people under the influence of marijuana are not as much of a problem than some people under the influence of alcohol. Sloppy, potentially angry drunk verses someone who got lost trying to find Funyuns. I personally(Not on the whole, just with my experience) think that high people are way less of a hassle to deal with than drunk people. You don't have to worry about a pot head passing out or puking all over the place. Some people I know don't even shows signs at all of being intoxicated, when they are in fact absolutely toasted.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Nov 8, 2010)

Hadley: Alcohol basically removes a filter from people, which is why we see such huge differences in emotions. Like I've explained before, it's just a judgement call, once it goes out the window, true thoughts come out the mouth instead of processed ones. This was kind of aimed toward Tyson too, well, his statement at least. I completely agree with you though, drunk people are far more of a hassle to deal with than high people. I think the most annoyance I've ever had from somebody smoking was "cmon man just hit it once, just onces, cmon man, just hit the bowl with me!" This (even though I get annoyed of it very quickly) is much easier to deal with than somebody about to puke all over my shoes.

AngeL: I take it you've tried eating human feces? What about drinking your own urine?


----------



## Hadley4000 (Nov 8, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> Hadley: Alcohol basically removes a filter from people, which is why we see such huge differences in emotions. Like I've explained before, it's just a judgement call, once it goes out the window, true thoughts come out the mouth instead of processed ones. This was kind of aimed toward Tyson too, well, his statement at least. I completely agree with you though, drunk people are far more of a hassle to deal with than high people. I think the most annoyance I've ever had from somebody smoking was "cmon man just hit it once, just onces, cmon man, just hit the bowl with me!" This (even though I get annoyed of it very quickly) is much easier to deal with than somebody about to puke all over my shoes.
> 
> AngeL: I take it you've tried eating human feces? What about drinking your own urine?


 
True thoughts also can come out when smoking weed. It falls in the fact that they are different drugs. Alcohol is a depressant, and marijuana is a depressant and stimulate together. They also cause intoxication differently. Weed triggers canabinoid receptors in your brain, where alcohol is your body fighting off poison. So they both do in a sense "Break down the barrier," but after that they following is different.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Nov 8, 2010)

Oh, I forgot to ask, can you link to that article where that doctor found that pot can stimulate the brain? Preferrably link to it's Peer Review Journal entry.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Nov 8, 2010)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051016083817.htm


----------



## Stefan (Nov 8, 2010)

Tyson said:


> As for Stefan's comment that you don't have to drink alcohol to be affected by drunks, I would say you're not being affected by alcohol. If some guy drinks, and he's an a$$hole, then it's his responsible, and not the alcohol's. I'd say people can drink as much as they want. But they are completely responsible for their actions. So some guy who is a complete a$$hole while being drunk, I guess my point would be to blame the person, and not to blame the person only with alcohol. Just because he sobers up it doesn't make him less of an a$$hole.



Why are there laws against guns? *Guns* aren't the problem, only *a$$holes* with guns are, right? I'm sure it's already illegal to shoot someone, so why are there laws against just having guns?

Why is it illegal for minors to buy alcohol? *Buying* isn't the problem, *drinking* is (or in your sense, not even that).

You're right, strictly speaking I'm indeed _"not being affected by alcohol"_. But: _without the alcohol, I wouldn't be affected_ (or at least less). The thing is, there aren't just laws against the harmful *final* act, there are also laws against precursors leading to it. Do you disagree that these exist or that they make sense?

And bah... you ignored what I called the most interesting part: how could drinking give you the right to ask for it to be banned?


----------



## Stefan (Nov 8, 2010)

Hadley4000 said:


> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051016083817.htm


 
From that paper:
_"However, *marijuana *has been the most commonly used illicit drug in developed countries, *producing acute memory impairment *and dependence/withdrawal symptoms in chronic users and animal models (6, 8–10)."_
-- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc1253627/

Haven't read it all, but I think the neurogenesis was found in *rats* after a *month of chronic treatment* with *injections* of a *much more pure and potent synthetic cannabinoid* than your usual pot. From your link: “This is a very potent cannabinoid oil,” Zhang says. “It’s not something that would be available on the street.”

So as far as I can tell, the paper *does *say typical use of marijuana produces memory impairment and *does not *say it stimulates neurogenesis (you're not a rat, you're not injecting it, you're not using the very pure and potent cannabinoid they've tested).


----------



## Tyson (Nov 8, 2010)

Stefan said:


> Why are there laws against guns? *Guns* aren't the problem, only *a$$holes* with guns are, right? I'm sure it's already illegal to shoot someone, so why are there laws against just having guns?
> 
> Why is it illegal for minors to buy alcohol? *Buying* isn't the problem, *drinking* is (or in your sense, not even that).
> 
> ...


 
Sure, I agree they exist and that they make sense. And I also agree that you can't just legalize every gun and allow your average civilian to carry around an assault rifle. But the consequences of someone being drunk in your presence is not the same as someone with a gun in your presence. With the exception of drunk driving, which is dealt with very harshly in the United States already, perhaps what you would like to see is harsher punishment for public intoxication.

As for the whole drinking thing and being allowed to criticize, I should be more specific. Someone such as yourself who makes informed decisions can generally make these judgments and know what's going on. But there are plenty of people out there who will say "X is bad" because their parents told them so, or because that's what they learned. It's those people that I was targeting with that statement.

Hmm, thought. If someone annoys you while they are drunk, it's public intoxication, but if someone annoys you while they're sober, they're just being stupid? I think that's partly my problem with it. That the alcohol alone should not escalate it from pure annoyance to crime.

If someone punches me, it doesn't matter if they are drunk or not. It's still assault.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Nov 8, 2010)

Tyson said:


> Hmm, thought. If someone annoys you while they are drunk, it's public intoxication, but if someone annoys you while they're sober, they're just being stupid? I think that's partly my problem with it. That the alcohol alone should not escalate it from pure annoyance to crime.




Alright, time to settle all of this. Outlaw stupidity and we're golden.


----------

