Poll: Should they legalize pot?

imaloony

New member
Nov 19, 2009
1,025
0
0
ravensheart18 said:
It's poison, your liver breaks down toxins in your body. Yes, it helps your heart, and on the down side:


Alcohol can also increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer. Two drinks a day can increase a healthy woman's risk by 10 per cent ? or more if there is a family history of the disease.

Red wine can also trigger migraines in people who are susceptible to them, probably because of the accumulation of histamines and tannins from prolonged contact with the skin of the grape during the fermentation process.

Wine can also elevate your triglyceride levels. High triglyceride levels are associated with health problems such as diabetes.

Drinking wine ? or any other alcoholic beverage ? can also lead to weight gain. A glass of wine contains about 120 calories and no nutrients ? that is, empty calories. Get together with friends, have a few glasses of wine along with a small plate of hors d'oeuvres, and you're approaching your total recommended caloric intake for the entire day. If you're not active, before long, your waistline will be in expansion mode.

Worldwide, drinking causes almost as much harm as smoking, according to the World Health Organization. The agency estimates that alcohol causes 1.8 million deaths around the world every year; about a third of those deaths are accidents that could have been avoided.

The WHO also estimates that worldwide, alcohol causes or plays a role in 20 per cent to 30 per cent of all cases of esophageal cancer, liver cancer, cirrhosis of the liver, homicide, epileptic seizures and traffic accidents.

Even in France, attempts have been made to make the country more aware of the potential pitfalls of alcohol. A 2005 report urged the French government to snap out of its state of national denial and take urgent steps to address the problems of alcohol abuse. The report found that alcohol was directly responsible for 23,000 deaths a year in France and indirectly responsible for 22,000 more.

The report's author, Hervé Chabalier, said one person in 10 in the country is ill because of the effects of alcohol.
Your liver can take a level of alcohol without it hurting your body. Your liver can filter alcohol without taking damage.

That report is one of many. And I'll bet you that most of the people they're referring to in that report abuse alcohol. If you drink alcohol in small, controlled amounts, it does NOTHING to you, and even can be beneficial.

More importantly, why are we even discussing alcohol? This is a topic about Pot, is it not?
The bottom line for me is that Pot fucks your lungs, fucks your brain, fucks the people around you, and there's no way around that. It's illegal for a reason and should stay so.
And for the whole "Well, cigarettes are legal", yeah, I know. If I had it my way, they'd be illegal too, but I'm guessing cigarettes being legal is just a compromise.
 

Grey_Area

Regular Member
Jun 26, 2008
62
0
11
The "It would be of great value to the country in taxes" argument is rubbish. Growing pot is less time consuming than brewing beer and if you do it right you end up with a self sustaining supply. Where the hell does the government get money from that? If it gets legalised then people will be growing their own, or have friends that do. The argument falls flat.

Where it has the possibility of improving the economy is to reduce the number of people convicted of a crime, and therefore imprisoned, leaving them with the opportunity to earn money and pay normal taxes (pretty much like most pot smokers already do, who haven't been arrested). This would leave the police freer to pursue real criminals like the ultra-rich and politicians.
 

MrJohnson

New member
May 13, 2009
329
0
0
Laughed so much about people saying pot smokers think "they're cool and edgy" and "having long term health effects". Most damaging long term effect? Minor damage to the lungs and throat from long term smoking. Do you people know that there's an entire generation of people 50+ still smoking? That the majority of the weed smokers in the 70's and 80's were middle aged parents that had smoked since they were teenagers?

Sorry, I forgot being giggly, happy, tired, hungry, and dizzy for a couple of hours directly endangers people. If you do too much weed can it fuck you up? Sure, just like everything.
 

Dags90

New member
Oct 27, 2009
4,683
0
0
Grey_Area said:
The "It would be of great value to the country in taxes" argument is rubbish. Growing pot is less time consuming than brewing beer and if you do it right you end up with a self sustaining supply. Where the hell does the government get money from that? If it gets legalised then people will be growing their own, or have friends that do. The argument falls flat.
I'm sorry, but I think you're mistaken. Growing marijuana is pretty time consuming, it's at least as time and cost consuming as making wine, if not more so. It also requires a lot of specialized equipment in colder climates. As it stands, there are laws regulating how much alcohol one can create for personal consumption, there's no reason to believe these laws couldn't be applied to marijuana as well.
 

MrJohnson

New member
May 13, 2009
329
0
0
imaloony said:
ravensheart18 said:
It's poison, your liver breaks down toxins in your body. Yes, it helps your heart, and on the down side:


Alcohol can also increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer. Two drinks a day can increase a healthy woman's risk by 10 per cent ? or more if there is a family history of the disease.

Red wine can also trigger migraines in people who are susceptible to them, probably because of the accumulation of histamines and tannins from prolonged contact with the skin of the grape during the fermentation process.

Wine can also elevate your triglyceride levels. High triglyceride levels are associated with health problems such as diabetes.

Drinking wine ? or any other alcoholic beverage ? can also lead to weight gain. A glass of wine contains about 120 calories and no nutrients ? that is, empty calories. Get together with friends, have a few glasses of wine along with a small plate of hors d'oeuvres, and you're approaching your total recommended caloric intake for the entire day. If you're not active, before long, your waistline will be in expansion mode.

Worldwide, drinking causes almost as much harm as smoking, according to the World Health Organization. The agency estimates that alcohol causes 1.8 million deaths around the world every year; about a third of those deaths are accidents that could have been avoided.

The WHO also estimates that worldwide, alcohol causes or plays a role in 20 per cent to 30 per cent of all cases of esophageal cancer, liver cancer, cirrhosis of the liver, homicide, epileptic seizures and traffic accidents.

Even in France, attempts have been made to make the country more aware of the potential pitfalls of alcohol. A 2005 report urged the French government to snap out of its state of national denial and take urgent steps to address the problems of alcohol abuse. The report found that alcohol was directly responsible for 23,000 deaths a year in France and indirectly responsible for 22,000 more.

The report's author, Hervé Chabalier, said one person in 10 in the country is ill because of the effects of alcohol.
Your liver can take a level of alcohol without it hurting your body. Your liver can filter alcohol without taking damage.

That report is one of many. And I'll bet you that most of the people they're referring to in that report abuse alcohol. If you drink alcohol in small, controlled amounts, it does NOTHING to you, and even can be beneficial.

More importantly, why are we even discussing alcohol? This is a topic about Pot, is it not?
The bottom line for me is that Pot fucks your lungs, fucks your brain, fucks the people around you, and there's no way around that. It's illegal for a reason and should stay so.
And for the whole "Well, cigarettes are legal", yeah, I know. If I had it my way, they'd be illegal too, but I'm guessing cigarettes being legal is just a compromise.
Evidence, for any of what you said? No? Then shut the fuck up and let people actually know what weed does talk. Weed was made illegal in the early 1900's just to take it away from Mexican immigrant workers. So there is the result of the demonetization of a relatively harmless plant for almost a hundred years to stupid white people who had no idea what it actually did.
 

Dags90

New member
Oct 27, 2009
4,683
0
0
MrJohnson said:
Evidence, for any of what you said? No? Then shut the fuck up and let people actually know what weed does talk. Weed was made illegal in the early 1900's just to take it away from Mexican immigrant workers. So there is the result of the demonetization of a relatively harmless plant for almost a hundred years to stupid white people who had no idea what it actually did.
This is a poor argument. While it's true on its face that racial and ethnic tensions were exploited in criminalizing marijuana, it's irrelevant to his points. He's actually correct as far as alcohol goes. In moderate doses, it has beneficial effects on the liver and heart. The mechanism isn't yet known for the liver, but it's believed that its hypotensive effects are what benefits the heart and circulatory system.

Moving on to his actual point against pot:
The bottom line for me is that Pot fucks your lungs, fucks your brain, fucks the people around you, and there's no way around that. It's illegal for a reason and should stay so.
For your first point, marijuana can be consumed in a myriad of ways. From pot brownies, pot olive oil, dissolved in alcohol, etc. THC is readily soluble in many solvents. For the last two, in moderate doses, the research is against you. While marijuana may have negative impacts to neurology at consistent high dosage, so does alcohol.
 

imaloony

New member
Nov 19, 2009
1,025
0
0
MrJohnson said:
Evidence, for any of what you said? No? Then shut the fuck up and let people actually know what weed does talk. Weed was made illegal in the early 1900's just to take it away from Mexican immigrant workers. So there is the result of the demonetization of a relatively harmless plant for almost a hundred years to stupid white people who had no idea what it actually did.
Linking to articles is pointless. All it will do is make you put up more articles, and then we're all reading articles we don't want to read.

Let me tell you something though: LUNGS ARE NOT MADE TO BREATH SMOKE. That's human physiology 101. When you breath in smoke, whether it's from Marijuana, Tobacco, or fuck, even just wood, it damages your lungs. Worst of all is the secondhand smoke shit, damaging the lungs of people who don't want that crap in their system.

Now, let's move on to the smokeless bullshit. When you get high, it forces your brain to work in ways it normally isn't supposed to work, a similar effect to getting drunk, and how that damages your brain. Regardless of how you take it, it's harmful to you.

Now, let me ask you something:
If it was a harmless plant, then why, after the discrimination has been swept under the rug, and all the apologies have been said, would we still have it be illegal? There would be no point to making it illegal then, so obviously, the plant has to be harmful enough to make it illegal.

You want proof and articles? Look 'em up yourself. I've got other things to do and I don't have time for this shit. This is my opinion, deal with it.
 

Dags90

New member
Oct 27, 2009
4,683
0
0
imaloony said:
Now, let me ask you something:
If it was a harmless plant, then why, after the discrimination has been swept under the rug, and all the apologies have been said, would we still have it be illegal? There would be no point to making it illegal then, so obviously, the plant has to be harmful enough to make it illegal.
Status quo. Laws don't automatically repeal themselves when social attitudes and scientific findings change. They have to be repealed. Similarly, freon didn't become immediately illegal when its effects were discovered, legislation had to be drafted and passed.
 

Grey_Area

Regular Member
Jun 26, 2008
62
0
11
Dags90 said:
As it stands, there are laws regulating how much alcohol one can create for personal consumption, there's no reason to believe these laws couldn't be applied to marijuana as well.
Those laws are pointless. Unless you start to sell product and are found out then most brewing happens under the radar. Pot growing certainly happens under the radar or it would not be an issue any more. Therefore you can brew or grow as much as you want, provided you aren't stupid. The point was less on the difficulty of growing pot and more on the fact that the government would not be able to tax it unless it was produced commercially. There are plenty of private pot growers (who seem to have no trouble paying for the systems or running them) and the industry would potentially fail before it started.

Basically I'm my own worst enemy, since I would like to see it legalised, or at the very least decriminalised. Yet none of the arguments produced will actually support this move.

Dags90 said:
imaloony said:
Now, let me ask you something:
If it was a harmless plant, then why, after the discrimination has been swept under the rug, and all the apologies have been said, would we still have it be illegal? There would be no point to making it illegal then, so obviously, the plant has to be harmful enough to make it illegal.
Status quo. Laws don't automatically repeal themselves when social attitudes and scientific findings change. They have to be repealed. Similarly, freon didn't become immediately illegal when its effects were discovered, legislation had to be drafted and passed.
There is a further issue here - there are three major lobby groups opposed to both marijuana and hemp (tarred with the same brush unfortunately) who hold very powerful sway in many governments. Basically the Alcohol, Tobacco and Textile groups originally got pot and hemp illegalised (is that a word?) back in (I think) the '30's. They saw the whole industry as a threat to their ability to make a profit. The stigma associated with dope smokers is propaganda, and the hatred of hemp as a useful crop is just ludicrous. But we are stuck with a disjointed lobby group with no money or real political clout fighting against the incumbent giants to even get overturning the laws looked at seriously.
 

Dags90

New member
Oct 27, 2009
4,683
0
0
Grey_Area said:
Those laws are pointless. Unless you start to sell product and are found out then most brewing happens under the radar. Pot growing certainly happens under the radar or it would not be an issue any more. Therefore you can brew or grow as much as you want, provided you aren't stupid. The point was less on the difficulty of growing pot and more on the fact that the government would not be able to tax it unless it was produced commercially. There are plenty of private pot growers (who seem to have no trouble paying for the systems or running them) and the industry would potentially fail before it started.
The laws aren't pointless. The whole point is that you're allowed to make your own alcohol, to a point. The amount you're allowed to produce for personal use is actually pretty generous.

As it stands, most people who consume pot now are buying from third party dealers despite its numerous downsides. I don't think it's likely that home growers would be the only market if it were legalized. As it is, there are many different strands and people can't reasonably grow several strands in their house if they want to try others.
 

MrJohnson

New member
May 13, 2009
329
0
0
imaloony said:
MrJohnson said:
Evidence, for any of what you said? No? Then shut the fuck up and let people actually know what weed does talk. Weed was made illegal in the early 1900's just to take it away from Mexican immigrant workers. So there is the result of the demonetization of a relatively harmless plant for almost a hundred years to stupid white people who had no idea what it actually did.
Linking to articles is pointless. All it will do is make you put up more articles, and then we're all reading articles we don't want to read.

Let me tell you something though: LUNGS ARE NOT MADE TO BREATH SMOKE. That's human physiology 101. When you breath in smoke, whether it's from Marijuana, Tobacco, or fuck, even just wood, it damages your lungs. Worst of all is the secondhand smoke shit, damaging the lungs of people who don't want that crap in their system.

Now, let's move on to the smokeless bullshit. When you get high, it forces your brain to work in ways it normally isn't supposed to work, a similar effect to getting drunk, and how that damages your brain. Regardless of how you take it, it's harmful to you.

Now, let me ask you something:
If it was a harmless plant, then why, after the discrimination has been swept under the rug, and all the apologies have been said, would we still have it be illegal? There would be no point to making it illegal then, so obviously, the plant has to be harmful enough to make it illegal.

You want proof and articles? Look 'em up yourself. I've got other things to do and I don't have time for this shit. This is my opinion, deal with it.
I can post to articles that actually conclusively prove something, and you don't want to deal with being wrong, since in this case it isn't a matter of opinion. I can say anything is a matter of opinion to get myself out of an argument, doesn't make it right. I actually know people that smoke, have smoked, know people that are over 50 and smoke and are no worse for the wear. It's illegal because people such as yourself believe every study you see, whether or not it was completely biased and made to reflect those results, instead of studies actually based on PEOPLE that have been smoking. And people listen to whatever bullshit is told to them regarding drugs of any sort instead of finding something out themselves.

And since when has that discrimination been swept under the rug? Since it hasn't.

The human lungs repairs damage at an amazing rate, with stuff the trash from cigarettes being cleansed from them in a matter of months even from years of smoking. MY grandpa is 70, been smoking since he was a teenager, has emphysema, and his lungs are repairing the non-permanent damage done to his lungs from his emphysema. Sure, his lungs will be down to like 50% maybe 75% of their past capacity, but that's much better than him living out his last years in misery.

Now what happens when someone smokes something that is only damaging to your lungs because of the smoke? As long as you don't smoke all the time, it gets fixed.

P.S. When I looked up harmful effects of marijuana the first article was about how marijuana has little to no effects on most peoples cognition, and when it does effect someone it usually only effects their short-term memory.
 

imaloony

New member
Nov 19, 2009
1,025
0
0
MrJohnson said:
I can post to articles that actually conclusively prove something, and you don't want to deal with being wrong, since in this case it isn't a matter of opinion. I can say anything is a matter of opinion to get myself out of an argument, doesn't make it right. I actually know people that smoke, have smoked, know people that are over 50 and smoke and are no worse for the wear. It's illegal because people such as yourself believe every study you see, whether or not it was completely biased and made to reflect those results, instead of studies actually based on PEOPLE that have been smoking. And people listen to whatever bullshit is told to them regarding drugs of any sort instead of finding something out themselves.

And since when has that discrimination been swept under the rug? Since it hasn't.

The human lungs repairs damage at an amazing rate, with stuff the trash from cigarettes being cleansed from them in a matter of months even from years of smoking. MY grandpa is 70, been smoking since he was a teenager, has emphysema, and his lungs are repairing the non-permanent damage done to his lungs from his emphysema. Sure, his lungs will be down to like 50% maybe 75% of their past capacity, but that's much better than him living out his last years in misery.

Now what happens when someone smokes something that is only damaging to your lungs because of the smoke? As long as you don't smoke all the time, it gets fixed.

P.S. When I looked up harmful effects of marijuana the first article was about how marijuana has little to no effects on most peoples cognition, and when it does effect someone it usually only effects their short-term memory.
Yes, this is actually based on opinion. "Should They Legalize Pot?" It is a question to which I will give my fucking OPINION.
I don't care what kind of studies or reports you throw at me. They're all irrelevant, for every study, there are two more disproving it. Trying to use studies to prove a point is just running around in circles, which is why I fucking hate using them. I have to eat up my time to hunt these fuckers down just to have another study thrown in my face, and I have to go hunt for another.

I don't know what kind of hell hole you live in, but where I live, we don't discriminate based on race or crap like that.

Yeah, the human lungs can repair themselves from smoke damage. My arm can repair itself from a cut. But if you continue to cut the arm, eventually it'll fall off. Lungs are the same way, years of abuse with cigarettes or joints can destroy them and knock off precious years of life. Is that REALLY worth it just to get a high?

Your grandpa has shaved off years of his life with his smoking habit, as have people I know. It's a filthy habit, and no matter how fast your lungs repair themselves, they can't keep up with the constant smoking, be it from Tobacco or Marijuana.
Also, I almost laughed when you said "As long as you don't smoke all the time." Smokers smoke all the time. It's an addiction. Cigarettes have the nicotine, and while Pot doesn't technically make you "Addicted", it becomes like a habit. It becomes part of your life, and you start smoking much faster than your lungs can repair the damage. It's a lose-lose situation.

The first article isn't always the best. That's why no one ever uses "I'm feeling lucky" on Google. Again, I'm sure there are plenty of articles disproving that one, and plenty of articles disproving those articles. I fucking hate sorting through the article shit.

P.S. In case you hadn't noticed, your short term memory is rather important.
 

VanityGirl

New member
Apr 29, 2009
3,472
0
0
You can't be phyically addicted to mary jane. People who say "I'm addicted to pot" or "I need to smoke pot or my day is bad" are stupid.

Let's get one thing perfectly clear, POT IS NOT ADDICTIVE.

When I say addictive, I mean your body craves it. People who think they're addicted to pot are mentally addicted. They think they're addicted, like a person who swears if they don't drink a milkshake everyday, they'll collapse.
 

Grey_Area

Regular Member
Jun 26, 2008
62
0
11
ravensheart18 said:
VanityGirl said:
You can't be phyically addicted to mary jane. People who say "I'm addicted to pot" or "I need to smoke pot or my day is bad" are stupid.

Let's get one thing perfectly clear, POT IS NOT ADDICTIVE.

When I say addictive, I mean your body craves it. People who think they're addicted to pot are mentally addicted. They think they're addicted, like a person who swears if they don't drink a milkshake everyday, they'll collapse.
That's simply not true. A pothead who cuts cold turkey will go through some nasty withdrawal. It's not dissimilar from alcohol that way. No problem with small amounts, nasty for a regular habit.
Pot is psychologocally addictive, but not necessarily physically addictive. The cold turkey is a psychosomatic effect from believing you need to have another toke, and can manifest itself in the same way. But it is true that in itself it is not addictive in the same way that tobacco is. Now people who rolled theirs with tobacco and then cut out all together may get serious withdrawal, but that would be linked to the reduction in nicotine, not THC.
 

bob-2000

New member
Jun 28, 2009
986
0
0
I'd just like to say that the reason why alcohol is legal and pot isn't is because a large majority of people buy alcohol just to drink casually. Pot on the other hand is almost always bought to get intoxicated. That's the difference.

Don't legalize pot.
 

MrJohnson

New member
May 13, 2009
329
0
0
imaloony said:
MrJohnson said:
I can post to articles that actually conclusively prove something, and you don't want to deal with being wrong, since in this case it isn't a matter of opinion. I can say anything is a matter of opinion to get myself out of an argument, doesn't make it right. I actually know people that smoke, have smoked, know people that are over 50 and smoke and are no worse for the wear. It's illegal because people such as yourself believe every study you see, whether or not it was completely biased and made to reflect those results, instead of studies actually based on PEOPLE that have been smoking. And people listen to whatever bullshit is told to them regarding drugs of any sort instead of finding something out themselves.

And since when has that discrimination been swept under the rug? Since it hasn't.

The human lungs repairs damage at an amazing rate, with stuff the trash from cigarettes being cleansed from them in a matter of months even from years of smoking. MY grandpa is 70, been smoking since he was a teenager, has emphysema, and his lungs are repairing the non-permanent damage done to his lungs from his emphysema. Sure, his lungs will be down to like 50% maybe 75% of their past capacity, but that's much better than him living out his last years in misery.

Now what happens when someone smokes something that is only damaging to your lungs because of the smoke? As long as you don't smoke all the time, it gets fixed.

P.S. When I looked up harmful effects of marijuana the first article was about how marijuana has little to no effects on most peoples cognition, and when it does effect someone it usually only effects their short-term memory.
Yes, this is actually based on opinion. "Should They Legalize Pot?" It is a question to which I will give my fucking OPINION.
I don't care what kind of studies or reports you throw at me. They're all irrelevant, for every study, there are two more disproving it. Trying to use studies to prove a point is just running around in circles, which is why I fucking hate using them. I have to eat up my time to hunt these fuckers down just to have another study thrown in my face, and I have to go hunt for another.

I don't know what kind of hell hole you live in, but where I live, we don't discriminate based on race or crap like that.

Yeah, the human lungs can repair themselves from smoke damage. My arm can repair itself from a cut. But if you continue to cut the arm, eventually it'll fall off. Lungs are the same way, years of abuse with cigarettes or joints can destroy them and knock off precious years of life. Is that REALLY worth it just to get a high?

Your grandpa has shaved off years of his life with his smoking habit, as have people I know. It's a filthy habit, and no matter how fast your lungs repair themselves, they can't keep up with the constant smoking, be it from Tobacco or Marijuana.
Also, I almost laughed when you said "As long as you don't smoke all the time." Smokers smoke all the time. It's an addiction. Cigarettes have the nicotine, and while Pot doesn't technically make you "Addicted", it becomes like a habit. It becomes part of your life, and you start smoking much faster than your lungs can repair the damage. It's a lose-lose situation.

The first article isn't always the best. That's why no one ever uses "I'm feeling lucky" on Google. Again, I'm sure there are plenty of articles disproving that one, and plenty of articles disproving those articles. I fucking hate sorting through the article shit.

P.S. In case you hadn't noticed, your short term memory is rather important.
I was talking about discrimination against marijuana itself, but whatever. And I was talking about it's not an opinion on how harmful marijuana is on your health, but again, whatever. The link I was talking about was also the only actual study I found, and the others were "Natural Remedies" and the one I was talking about was one on wedMD. Did you notice I said the damage, if there was any, was minimal? As to the point that natural memory decay might cause, as most of the studies were done on adults?

P.S. Barbecuing or grilling everyday creates just as damaging smoke that you probably inhale more of, and a hell of a let more people grill everyday than smoke.

Again, the majority of people don't smoke everyday. If someone does something EVERY FUCKING DAY, than of course it's going to be harmful.

Cigarettes are so harmful to your lungs because the nicotine and tar stay on them and don't allow the lungs to repair. Marijuana is a one time thing, and even if you smoke every day, is not that harmful overall. Does it hurt developing lungs and bodies a LOT? Yes, there is no denying that.

If you think marijuana shouldn't be legal, fine, I guess. If you post BS arguments that are a result of misinformation, and back them up being an asshole, then cool bro, I'm done.

By the way, I never said people couldn't become "addicted". I know it becomes a habit.

And "I'm done" means I'm done arguing since I'm not going to change your mind, and I'm honestly surprised I haven't been suspended or banned yet.
 

VanityGirl

New member
Apr 29, 2009
3,472
0
0
ravensheart18 said:
VanityGirl said:
You can't be phyically addicted to mary jane. People who say "I'm addicted to pot" or "I need to smoke pot or my day is bad" are stupid.

Let's get one thing perfectly clear, POT IS NOT ADDICTIVE.

When I say addictive, I mean your body craves it. People who think they're addicted to pot are mentally addicted. They think they're addicted, like a person who swears if they don't drink a milkshake everyday, they'll collapse.
That's simply not true. A pothead who cuts cold turkey will go through some nasty withdrawal. It's not dissimilar from alcohol that way. No problem with small amounts, nasty for a regular habit.
What Grey_Area said is true. But also...
We first need a definition of the word, "Addicted". Not too long ago, an addictive subtance was something that, when taken long enough, produced gross phsyiogical changes in the way the body worked, so that normal operation of the body was impossible without that substance being injested. And as the substance must, by definition, form a tolerance, higher and higher dosages (up to a point) were needed. This is the defintion of "additictive" I'm going to use for this explanation. Addictive is not the same as "habituating". Habituatingsubstances, using this definition, are things you crave, may even come to need, but do not create a gross physiological change in the way your body works (trace neurological/neurochemical changes can and do happen but, they're quite minor, and they aren't always substance-related: stroking a pet for instance, can cause such trace effects).

In the cases of alcohol and barbituates, the addiction, in the sense I describe, is very strong. Stopping these drugs suddenly for extreme addictions usually will require hospitalization, additional medication to treat symptoms of withdrawal and, especially, in the case of barbituates, may result in death. Lesser addictions like heroin or opioids can also cause withdrawl syndromes, although not as strongly as ethanol or barbituates, and opiate withdrawal is not fatal (barring the existance of other factors).

The active ingredient in Cannibis sativa is THC (delta 1 tetrahydrocannibinol). THC is active in very low dosages. Therapeutic THC is typically delivered 5mg tid (three times a day). As addiction in the sense I mean it is a gross process, tiny dosages typically don't generate the large-scale physiological changes a true addiction needs to get revved up (neurological yes; physio no). So most people, scientists and street-users, think of marijuana as non-addictive. A recent study at Columbia University offers potentially contradictory evidence, but it's still only one study and not accepted as universal fact at this time. As such, if you say THC is not clinically addictive, most of the world will agree with you.

Can marijuana be habituating? Absolutely -- but not universally. Just as some people definately use Marijuana in a manner that can only be described as a habit, some have used marijuana for years but not in a habitual pattern. While the same can be said for alcohol, it seems that alcoholics really do set up a regular pattern of extensive use that I personally don't see nearly as frequently in marijuana users.

In cases of marijuana habituation, I think the causal factors are obscure. With addictive drugs, we can see clear, obvious, repeatable effects in terms of addiction. With marijuana, we see far less predictable results. And why these results are not as predictable is not clear.

The basic fact is that most marijunana uses (maybe all marijuana users) do not display signs of addiction (as defined above).

So, any "withdrawals" are not real. It's a pysocological thing as far as I've known. Considering many of my friends smoke pot, but those who've quit, and these were heavy pot smokers, showed absolutely NO withdrawals.
 

imaloony

New member
Nov 19, 2009
1,025
0
0
MrJohnson said:
I was talking about discrimination against marijuana itself, but whatever. And I was talking about it's not an opinion on how harmful marijuana is on your health, but again, whatever. The link I was talking about was also the only actual study I found, and the others were "Natural Remedies" and the one I was talking about was one on wedMD. Did you notice I said the damage, if there was any, was minimal? As to the point that natural memory decay might cause, as most of the studies were done on adults?

P.S. Barbecuing or grilling everyday creates just as damaging smoke that you probably inhale more of, and a hell of a let more people grill everyday than smoke.

Again, the majority of people don't smoke everyday. If someone does something EVERY FUCKING DAY, than of course it's going to be harmful.

Cigarettes are so harmful to your lungs because the nicotine and tar stay on them and don't allow the lungs to repair. Marijuana is a one time thing, and even if you smoke every day, is not that harmful overall. Does it hurt developing lungs and bodies a LOT? Yes, there is no denying that.

If you think marijuana shouldn't be legal, fine, I guess. If you post BS arguments that are a result of misinformation, and back them up being an asshole, then cool bro, I'm done.

By the way, I never said people couldn't become "addicted". I know it becomes a habit.

And "I'm done" means I'm done arguing since I'm not going to change your mind, and I'm honestly surprised I haven't been suspended or banned yet.
Again, I want you to list the beneficial effects of marijuana. Getting high and pissing off everyone around you, fucking up your lungs, fucking up your mind, and burning a hole in your wallet doesn't count. Oh, it might help the economy? Bullshit. We've tried dozens of other ways to get the economy out of the toilet, so why should this be any different? My point is, Marijuana is bad period. There is nothing positive about it. So why should we legalize something that does nothing more than annoy people, kill people, and kill your wallet? Oh, it's medical. Well in that case, it should be a prescription drug period. Unless we should just go around selling Morphine to anyone who has a buck to burn.

Grills have lids. Joints do not.

LOTS of people smoke every day. Don't try to deny this, whether it's weed or tobacco, people do it every day, or at least almost every day. Why? It's a habit. It's not easy to break.

Hey, I can just as easily call yours BS because they're just as valid as mine. Oh, you posted an article. Whoopee, I have better things to do.

I haven't been stopping you from stopping this argument, and I never thought I would change your mind. I'm just defending my position. So, later, I guess.
 

cerebus23

New member
May 16, 2010
1,275
0
0
just as a little aside since we talking addiction of marijuana, the report they got that from was the iom (internal office of medicine) report an official government report on the effects of mj.

How did they get that physically addictive property of mj? well they took severely inbread lab rats, dosed them with extreme levels of thc over long term periods and cut them off cold turkey. the rats showed signs of withdrawl in some cases severe. therefore in government logic that made weed physically addictive.

you know how you measure physical addictiveness in substances? it is how they effect dopamine levels in the human brain. cocain has something like 3 enhances and effectors to dopamine in the brain. heroine has something like 4. every physically addictive drug has a effect on the dopamine systems in the brain.

and guess what there has never ever been any evidence at all that in a normal human brain marijuana has any effect at all on dopamine period.

marijuana can be psychologically addictive, so can food, chocolate, drinking, and just about any activity, extreme forms of exercise can release endorphins and dopamine.

far as alcohol is much better because people do not abuse that that is utter and complete bullshit. binge drinking is the norm for many college students now days. alcohol is poisonous, hence with binge drinking you can get alcohol poisoning from it and die from it, it totally destroys peoples ability to make judgments, can cause blackouts, it causes multiple car accidents from people driving drunk, so all this is ok?

do many people drink responsibily? sure, do some people become alcoholics? yes. do some people get killed or kill others due to the effects of alcohol? yes.

the amount of bs flying around this topic is reaching critical levels bending over backwards to to excuse one drug that is much more harmful, while spinning the typical bs that all potheads are junkies, are dangerous and are complete burn outs. and using pseudo science to justify it, the same pseudo science the government uses to justify the crap.

incidenly the IOM report stated the marijuana did show some promising evidence as a use for medicine, but of course that smoking it was not an ideal delivery system.