|
mewalrus
Jul 8, 2003, 3:56 AM
Post #226 of 355
(18474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 132
|
Moral and political debates are the same for me. I am not religious so politics is all about morals, there is no difference that I can see. Not that I wish to impose my own morals on others by rule of law.
As to Pot, its bad Just Say No :wink:
Some people do operate better while stoned, not me, but I have known a few who do.
As to climbing high. If you smoke 24/7 then climbing high is probably fine. If you only smoke occasionally then I wouldn't advocte climbing high. With smoking pot alot there is a definate steady state thats achieved. Its not so much tolerance as it is saturation due to the long half-life of THC, not that i would know or anything.
|
|
|
|
|
micahmcguire
Jul 8, 2003, 4:17 AM
Post #227 of 355
(18474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 889
|
i see. morality and politics indistingueshed? Plato would have loved you. So I guess, if marijuana corrupts the relative "excellence of the soul" then it is just not to smoke it. Definitly not to tell other people how they should justly live their lives. Interesting point.
and so the question reverts again. is it justifiable to smoke pot? Does pot damage the "excellence of the soul," thereby making it unjust? The short answer, in my opinion, is no.
This topic has long since trekked into the depths of mediocrity and overall stagnation. Anyone feel compelled to flog the dead horse?
|
|
|
|
|
jefffski
Jul 8, 2003, 6:20 AM
Post #228 of 355
(18474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 286
|
some new points against marijuana:
20 years ago, the THC content of pot was about 5%. now, homegrown stuff is over 30%. this must make a biochemical difference, no?
in canada, pot sales are largely governed by the hell's angels, a violent organized crime syndicate that also deals in prostitution, guns and other drugs. so, at least in canada, buying drugs can have a very negative influence on society. although simple possesion will be decriminalized soon, selling will still be illegal.
where i live there are thousands of grow-ops located in homes that are rented. the grow-ops destroy these homes, making them unlivable when they leave. the operators steal electricity and often burn down the homes. more bad.
of course there are worse things some of us do, but i'm not comparing.
food (or is that smoke?) for thought.
|
|
|
|
|
dead_milkman
Jul 8, 2003, 4:01 PM
Post #229 of 355
(18474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 241
|
In reply to: some new points against marijuana: 20 years ago, the THC content of pot was about 5%. now, homegrown stuff is over 30%. this must make a biochemical difference, no?
Myth. The highest *ever* d9-THC content measured was in the neighbourhood of 27%... the stuff that Johnny-on-the-sopt can buy is, at the most, 13-14%. The 30% number was floated by the US's current drug Czar - it has little basis in fact. It doesn't matter anyhow, as one just tends to smoke less strong weed.
In reply to: in canada, pot sales are largely governed by the hell's angels, a violent organized crime syndicate that also deals in prostitution, guns and other drugs. so, at least in canada, buying drugs can have a very negative influence on society. although simple possesion will be decriminalized soon, selling will still be illegal.
A great reason for drugs to be legal and regulated... Legal drugs = no drug crime. Cf. drug related crime rates in European nations who have adopted harm reduction strategies to deal with addiction, rather than the archaic War fought by the US and - to a lesser extent - Canada.
In reply to: where i live there are thousands of grow-ops located in homes that are rented. the grow-ops destroy these homes, making them unlivable when they leave. the operators steal electricity and often burn down the homes. more bad.
Another great reason for drugs to be legal, don't you think?
DM
|
|
|
|
|
jefffski
Jul 8, 2003, 5:15 PM
Post #230 of 355
(18474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 286
|
In reply to: In reply to: some new points against marijuana: 20 years ago, the THC content of pot was about 5%. now, homegrown stuff is over 30%. this must make a biochemical difference, no? Myth. The highest *ever* d9-THC content measured was in the neighbourhood of 27%... the stuff that Johnny-on-the-sopt can buy is, at the most, 13-14%. The 30% number was floated by the US's current drug Czar - it has little basis in fact. It doesn't matter anyhow, as one just tends to smoke less strong weed. In reply to: in canada, pot sales are largely governed by the hell's angels, a violent organized crime syndicate that also deals in prostitution, guns and other drugs. so, at least in canada, buying drugs can have a very negative influence on society. although simple possesion will be decriminalized soon, selling will still be illegal. A great reason for drugs to be legal and regulated... Legal drugs = no drug crime. Cf. drug related crime rates in European nations who have adopted harm reduction strategies to deal with addiction, rather than the archaic War fought by the US and - to a lesser extent - Canada. DM
Thanks for your points. i have been looking for research on delta-9 THC content on homegrown bud. hard to find, but i think you may be right. but there has been an increase.
this research paper discusses some of the possible effects.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:YCU80MErlNEJ:members.optusnet.com.au/~apfdfy/Suicide.html+International+Narcotics+Control+Board+thc+percent&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
My other point is not to argue for or against legalization. i am saying that if you buy or grow pot now this is the effect. Are you saying that even if buying pot contributes to the growth of organized crime and to the destruction of homes and sometimes neighbourhoods from grow-ops it's ok to buy/smoke/sell/grow?
|
|
|
|
|
dead_milkman
Jul 8, 2003, 6:00 PM
Post #231 of 355
(18474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 241
|
In reply to: Thanks for your points. i have been looking for research on delta-9 THC content on homegrown bud. hard to find, but i think you may be right. but there has been an increase.
Plenty of research exists on THC content... take a visit to Pub Med Central or some such. I have several recently published books in my lab which reference THC content at levels much much lower that the drug war apologist propaganda would have you believe.
In reply to: this research paper discusses some of the possible effects. http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:YCU80MErlNEJ:members.optusnet.com.au/~apfdfy/Suicide.html+International+Narcotics+Control+Board+thc+percent&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
This is irrelevant... The effect of cannabinoids on Schizophrenics is well documented, and obviously beside the point.
In reply to: My other point is not to argue for or against legalization. i am saying that if you buy or grow pot now this is the effect. Are you saying that even if buying pot contributes to the growth of organized crime and to the destruction of homes and sometimes neighbourhoods from grow-ops it's ok to buy/smoke/sell/grow?
I'm saying this should not be the case, as the law itself is the problem. Organized crime will gain a toe-hold in any money-making venture that they can and our governments are allowing - no, encouraging - this to continue through policies of prohibition.
As for growing pot, I fail to see how if I grow pot for my use I am somehow contributing to organized crime and the lowering of property values... perhaps you could elaborate?
DM
|
|
|
|
|
micahmcguire
Jul 8, 2003, 6:07 PM
Post #232 of 355
(18474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 889
|
jeffski wrote "20 years ago, the THC content of pot was about 5%. now, homegrown stuff is over 30%. this must make a biochemical difference, no?"
no, thats a myth. and even if the THC content of this day's pot is 30%, it still doesn't operate in a manner that would be biochemically addictive. It doesn't matter how concentrated it gets, it still doesn't bind to the right part of the nervous system to become biochemically addictive.
|
|
|
|
|
jefffski
Jul 8, 2003, 7:50 PM
Post #233 of 355
(18474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 286
|
In reply to: Plenty of research exists on THC content... take a visit to Pub Med Central or some such. I have several recently published books in my lab which reference THC content at levels much much lower that the drug war apologist propaganda would have you believe. As for growing pot, I fail to see how if I grow pot for my use I am somehow contributing to organized crime and the lowering of property values... perhaps you could elaborate? DM
can you provide a link?
my comments were regarding grow ops--that is entire homes dedicated to growing pot for resale, not for personal use. clearly the present system is at least partially responsible for this situation.
my question is, given this current situation, do you think it is ok to buy pot from dealers (who are not your best friends who grow small amounts)?
regarding thc content, i think that research on the short and long term effects of marijauna with potent levels of delta-9 thc are in their infancy. many earlier studies do show many long term adverse effects on humans and animals. recent research also shows that cannabinoids are less effective or just as effective as codeine in pain control.
if you have some info to share i woul be interested in reading it.
|
|
|
|
|
mewalrus
Jul 9, 2003, 3:30 AM
Post #234 of 355
(18474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 132
|
In reply to: my question is, given this current situation, do you think it is ok to buy pot from dealers (who are not your best friends who grow small amounts)?
Do you check the ethics of every business you patronize?
I would feel better about buying pot from a dealer than I would about shopping at Walmart. They both have comparable ethics.
Note: I refuse to shop at Walmart and I don't buy pot from dealers.
Realistically, is it the consumers responsibility that house got destroyed is it the responsibility of the person who destroyed it??
Given the current illegality it is almost impossible to know who produced what you are buying and how they produced it. This is solely because it is illegal, if it were legal it would be easy to only buy from producers on the up and up. Right now its impossible, thanks to the good ole guvment.
Think about this.
1. Demand for Pot is relatively constant, this won't change drastically.
2. Everytime they bust a "destroyed" house it means that one more grow-op will spring up in an otherwise fine house. Now this house is destroyed.
3. The more busts, the worse the problem becomes. Many destroyed houses.
In reply to: many earlier studies do show many long term adverse effects on humans and animals.
Long term adverse effects from THC injestion?
Can you please cite the studies you refer to, I would like to read them.
In reply to: i think that research on the short and long term effects of marijauna with potent levels of delta-9 thc are in their infancy.
I'll address this quickly since its obvious you don't have alot of experience smoking pot or being with those who smoke. In general if the pot is more potent you smoke alot less and if its less potent you smoke alot more. People are seeking a certain level of effect and generally not more or less. THC does not elicit a substantial tolerance so the dosage stays relatively constant.
One question. What could bee done "realistically" to solve the problems you are refering to? Whats your idea?
|
|
|
|
|
jefffski
Jul 9, 2003, 4:53 AM
Post #235 of 355
(18474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 286
|
In reply to: In reply to: my question is, given this current situation, do you think it is ok to buy pot from dealers (who are not your best friends who grow small amounts)? Do you check the ethics of every business you patronize? I would feel better about buying pot from a dealer than I would about shopping at Walmart. They both have comparable ethics. Note: I refuse to shop at Walmart and I don't buy pot from dealers. Realistically, is it the consumers responsibility that house got destroyed is it the responsibility of the person who destroyed it?? Given the current illegality it is almost impossible to know who produced what you are buying and how they produced it. This is solely because it is illegal, if it were legal it would be easy to only buy from producers on the up and up. Right now its impossible, thanks to the good ole guvment. Think about this. 1. Demand for Pot is relatively constant, this won't change drastically. 2. Everytime they bust a "destroyed" house it means that one more grow-op will spring up in an otherwise fine house. Now this house is destroyed. 3. The more busts, the worse the problem becomes. Many destroyed houses. In reply to: many earlier studies do show many long term adverse effects on humans and animals. Long term adverse effects from THC injestion? Can you please cite the studies you refer to, I would like to read them. In reply to: i think that research on the short and long term effects of marijauna with potent levels of delta-9 thc are in their infancy. I'll address this quickly since its obvious you don't have alot of experience smoking pot or being with those who smoke. In general if the pot is more potent you smoke alot less and if its less potent you smoke alot more. People are seeking a certain level of effect and generally not more or less. THC does not elicit a substantial tolerance so the dosage stays relatively constant. One question. What could bee done "realistically" to solve the problems you are refering to? Whats your idea?
I'll work on that one. But i'll position my argument by the idea that the correct solution is often the hardest one to implement. Legalizing pot is easy.
Here's a question for you. why do people want to get high? i drink alcohol on occaision but do not need or want to get drunk. What is wrong with people's live's that they cannot confront their issues but need to get high? For fun, on occaision i understand, but daily? if they were behaviourally addicted i could understand, but people on this forum defend their frequent (more than 1 per month in my estimation) use.
Your argument pitting walmart and a dealer is silly. Walmart, Nike, etc, (and almost all the companies that make the clothes you wear incidentally) are far from perfect global citizens, but they do pay taxes, help in their communities and even make some positive differences in the lives and communities in the place of manufacture. Comparing them to local, violent non-tax paying organized crime sydicates is a sham.
here are some studies i came across. Few studies describe long term effects because of previous protocol issues. Increase chances of pulmonary diseases are obvious. i believe we'll learn more in the next 5 years.
However there is evidence that THC may affect the immune system in the long run and that more research is needed. Lots of short term effects are described which linger in all users because THC is fat soluble and attaches to the cannabinoid receptors in the brain and are then released slowly into the body.
So, if you don't need it, your life is good, you're healthy, why take the risk?
everything from here on is quoted directly. where more information is available i've included the url.
http://8ball.ofb.net/~heath/ceot.ppt
Fletcher JM, Page JB, Francis DJ, Copeland MA, Naus MJ, Davis CM, et al. Cognitive correlates of long-term cannabis use in Costa Rican Men. Arch Gen Psych 1996;53:1051-1057. (Older users average use 34 years and younger users average 8 years. Older users showed more disruption of short term memory, working memory, and attention skills.)
Soderstrom, CA, et al. Archives of Surgery Vol.123:733-737. 1988. Marijuana and Alcohol Use Among 1023 Trauma Patients. (Study found that 34.7% of patients received with major trauma injuries had marijuana in their system, 32.6% had alcohol.)
Solowij et al. Biol Psychiatry, 37; 731-739, 1995. (The ability to focus attention and filter out irrelevant information was measured and was found to be impaired progressively by the number of years of marijuana use, but was unrelated to the frequency of use. The results suggested that a chronic buildup of cannabinoid produces both short and long term impairments of brain function compared to control subjects. Marijuana produces an attention deficit.)
Solowij et al, National Drug and Alcohol Research Center, Sydney, Australia. Life Sciences, Vol. 56, pp.2119-2126, 1995. (This study confirms that marijuana use produces difficulty in complex brain functions and, more disturbingly, even after up to 6 months of abstinence these effects were still present.)
Zwerling and associates. Journal of the American Medicine Association, vol. 264, pp.2639 -2643,1990. (Marijuana users had 55% more industrial accidents, 85% more injuries and a 78% increase in absenteeism. The mean absence rate from the job was 7.1% for marijuana users compared to 4% for non-users.)
Brookoff D, Cook CS, Williams C, Mann CS. New England Journal of Medicine Aug.25,1994 pp 518- 522. Testing Reckless Drivers For Cocaine and Marijuana. (A total of 175 subjects were stopped for reckless driving, and 150 submitted urine samples for drug testing at the scene of arrest. 59% tested positive. 13% for cocaine, 33% for marijuana, 12% for both.)
medicinal use:
re glaucoma
http://www.hivpositive.com/f-Nutrition/MedicalMarijuana/MM-Glaucoma.html.
In glaucoma, there does not appear to be any obvious reason to use smoked marijuana as a primary " stand alone" investigational therapy, as there are many available agents for treatment, and these topical preparations seem to be potentially ideal. An approach that may be useful is to study smoked marijuana in incomplete responders to standard therapies.
http://www.nih.gov/news/medmarijuana/MedicalMarijuana.htm#EXECUTIVE
In summary, the testing of smoked marijuana to evaluate its therapeutic effects is a difficult, but not impossible, task. Until studies are done using scientifically acceptable clinical trial design and subjected to appropriate statistical analysis, the questions concerning the therapeutic utility of marijuana will likely remain much as they have to date--largely unanswered. To the extent that the NIH can facilitate the development of a scientifically rigorous and relevant database, the NIH should do so.
breastfeeding
http://www.naturalchildbirth.org/natural/resources/breastfeeding/breastfeeding08.htm.
Although no adverse effects of marijuana exposure from breastmilk have been reported, follow-up of these infants is inadequate At the present time, the long term effects of this exposure are unknown and additional research to determine these effects, if any, is warranted. The American Academy of Pediatrics considers the use of marijuana during breastfeeding to be contraindicated.
Breastfeeding and drug exposure. CR Howard and RA Lawrence. Obstetric Gynecol Clin of North America 1998; 25(1): 195-217.
|
|
|
|
|
mewalrus
Jul 9, 2003, 10:21 PM
Post #236 of 355
(18474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 132
|
In reply to: But i'll position my argument by the idea that the correct solution is often the hardest one to implement.
I see no logic in that statement whatsoever. Please tell me how that statement is a valid argument?
In reply to: Here's a question for you. why do people want to get high? i drink alcohol on occaision but do not need or want to get drunk. What is wrong with people's live's that they cannot confront their issues but need to get high? For fun, on occaision i understand, but daily? if they were behaviourally addicted i could understand, but people on this forum defend their frequent (more than 1 per month in my estimation) use.
I would say that people smoke pot for the same reasons most people here rock climb. Some people get addicted to pot and some to rock climbing. That doesn't mean they are bad in and of themselves, or even if they are bad it doesn't mean they should bee illegal. I could make a much better argument as to why rock climbing should be illegal than why it should be legal, does that mean it should be illegal?
This is the only study that mentions anything possibly about long term effects.
"Solowij et al, National Drug and Alcohol Research Center, Sydney, Australia. Life Sciences, Vol. 56, pp.2119-2126, 1995. (This study confirms that marijuana use produces difficulty in complex brain functions and, more disturbingly, even after up to 6 months of abstinence these effects were still present.)
I'll have to find it and see what they say.
Everything I have seen is to the contrary, the studies I have seen say there is no long term imparment of mental capacity. Not that I really care if there was, you should be able to fry your brain if you want to. Free soloing is legal and thats a hell of alot more dangerous than pot.
Do you realize how most of those studies are funded???
If the researchers don't say something bad they lose their funding because the sole pourpose of them is to demonize marijuana.
Why do you feel it is your right to control other people?
|
|
|
|
|
dead_milkman
Jul 10, 2003, 1:06 AM
Post #237 of 355
(18474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 241
|
First off, I've been a touch swamped at work this week (our methadone maintenance program started recently) and have not had a lot of time to address your last post... For starters you could check out a copy of "Disposition of Toxic Chemicals in Man" -- your local university library will most likely have a recent copy to peruse, and it contains a good primer on most drugs known to humankind, including pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and toxicological information, as well as references to many good papers.
In reply to: i think that research on the short and long term effects of marijauna with potent levels of delta-9 thc are in their infancy.
Marijuana is mostly a self regulated drug... you cannot realistically reach an LD50. Most pot still has total cannabinoid contents of well less than 10% - only 22% of active cannabinoids are present after marijuana is burned (as in smoke)... from there uptake is based on individual physiology and limited. A toxic dose is not reasonable... and while one case has been cited in which an individual went into convulsions and shock after smoking what was, apparantly, a joint, 30-odd years ago, speculation is that she was smoking something else entirely. Unfortunately this case was not subject to further forensic analysis, as she did not die.
In reply to: I'll work on that one. But i'll position my argument by the idea that the correct solution is often the hardest one to implement. Legalizing pot is easy.
Legalising pot actually turns out to be quite difficult... several states have tried over the past hundred years only to be told, quite forcibly, that they weren't allowed, having signed away their rights to regulate illicit drugs to the federal government at the turn of the century. In Canada, even though a recent Senate committe recommended blanket legalisation, the federal government is not willing to take this step. In Denmark the conservative government which was recently elected is threatening to revert to a zero-tolorance policy and in Holland, where pot is accepted as a matter of course, it still remains officially illegal.
In reply to: Here's a question for you. why do people want to get high? i drink alcohol on occaision but do not need or want to get drunk. What is wrong with people's live's that they cannot confront their issues but need to get high? For fun, on occaision i understand, but daily? if they were behaviourally addicted i could understand, but people on this forum defend their frequent (more than 1 per month in my estimation) use.
A good question, indeed... People have used psycoactive substances for well over 5000 years... that we know of. Animals do the same. And why not? But then, I'm a self-professed hedonist, so what do I know. If it feels good - and doesn't harm anyone else - it is good.
In reply to: Your argument pitting walmart and a dealer is silly. Walmart, Nike, etc, (and almost all the companies that make the clothes you wear incidentally) are far from perfect global citizens, but they do pay taxes, help in their communities and even make some positive differences in the lives and communities in the place of manufacture. Comparing them to local, violent non-tax paying organized crime sydicates is a sham.
Agreed. Though Walmart and Nike's labour practices are, in some cases, quite criminal... but that's another topic for another day. Suffice to say that supporting organised crime is to be avoided... and I believe, quite strongly, that no-one is supporting organised crime more so than the governments of countries who refuse to allow citizens to determine the course of their own lives. But I'm a civil liberterian too, so what do I know.
In reply to: here are some studies i came across. Few studies describe long term effects because of previous protocol issues. Increase chances of pulmonary diseases are obvious. i believe we'll learn more in the next 5 years.
The risk of asthama, heart disease, lung cancer, and other diseases related to inhaling carcinogens is great indeed. But cigarettes are legal, as others have pointed out before me, and so should they be. I do not, however, believe that smokers should be allowed to endanger the health of others by smoking in public places or in front of children... but this is also another issue. A danish study has indicated that marijuana smoke contains no teratogens, however, so whether or not it is safe to smoke during pregnancy is still open to debate.
The study is available in Ugeskr Laeger 1999, 161(36), 5024-8.
In reply to: However there is evidence that THC may affect the immune system in the long run and that more research is needed. Lots of short term effects are described which linger in all users because THC is fat soluble and attaches to the cannabinoid receptors in the brain and are then released slowly into the body.
See Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1998, 60(4), 777-84.
This study indicates what researchers have known for some time... that after dosing with smoked marijuana (in many different amounts, some rather high, no pun intended) affects return to baseline in less that 3.5 hours - in all cases. No effects were obsevered after a day. However, this study also found something new - that smoking pot slows smooth eye tracking during the hours after smoking.
While the literature reports that cannbinoids are deposited in fatty tissue, no evidence to date exists that suggests deleterious effects as it egresses.
"Dispositon..." also contains a thorough treatment of pharmacokinetics.
In reply to: So, if you don't need it, your life is good, you're healthy, why take the risk?
Because it feels good? Damn hedonists...
In reply to: http://8ball.ofb.net/~heath/ceot.ppt Fletcher JM, Page JB, Francis DJ, Copeland MA, Naus MJ, Davis CM, et al. Cognitive correlates of long-term cannabis use in Costa Rican Men. Arch Gen Psych 1996;53:1051-1057. (Older users average use 34 years and younger users average 8 years. Older users showed more disruption of short term memory, working memory, and attention skills.)
This link is to a powerpoint presentation, not a paper... the references are not listed - where did you get them?
Did you actually read this paper, or is this just cut and paste from the abstract? If you have read the paper, is the loss of memory *while* dosed or not? I don't have electronic access to this journal... could you mail me the pdf so that I can read it?
In reply to: Soderstrom, CA, et al. Archives of Surgery Vol.123:733-737. 1988. Marijuana and Alcohol Use Among 1023 Trauma Patients. (Study found that 34.7% of patients received with major trauma injuries had marijuana in their system, 32.6% had alcohol.)
"Use of marijuana and alcohol in combination (16.5%) was highly significant compared with marijuana alone (18.3%)" It has been known for some time that marijuana drastically increases the effects of alcohol. Also, I'm unconvinced that serum levels of 2 ng/mL are sufficient to indicate that someone was actually dosed at the time of trauma.
In reply to: Solowij et al. Biol Psychiatry, 37; 731-739, 1995. (The ability to focus attention and filter out irrelevant information was measured and was found to be impaired progressively by the number of years of marijuana use, but was unrelated to the frequency of use. The results suggested that a chronic buildup of cannabinoid produces both short and long term impairments of brain function compared to control subjects. Marijuana produces an attention deficit.)
And now Science Direct will not allow me to log in... Bastards. If you have the pdf I would like this as well... I am only privy to the abstract. In any case, the effects of smoking pot on memory are modest... see: Acute Effects of Cannibis on Human Behavior and Central Nervous System Functions (in The Health Effects of Cannibis, H. Kalant, et. al. eds., Toronto, Addiction Research Foundation, 1999). Effects of cannibis on recognition and pair-associate tasks are inconsistent... however, free recall - when items to be learned and their recall both are to occur when dosed - is affected. However, recall when high of tasks previously learned (while cannibis is not present) is typically very good. The Canadian Senate report states, after an extensive literature review, that "it does not appear that long-term use casues any significant permanant harm to intellectual ability." Animal studies back this claim:
The Effects of delta-9-THC on mechanisms of learning and memory, in Neurobiology of Drug Abuse: Learning and Memory, Rockville, MD, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1990.
Psychpharmacology 119, 282-290, 1995.
The senate report concludes by saying "cannibis may be viewed as posing a lower level threat to cognitive function than other psycoactive substances such as alcohol."
In reply to: Solowij et al, National Drug and Alcohol Research Center, Sydney, Australia. Life Sciences, Vol. 56, pp.2119-2126, 1995. (This study confirms that marijuana use produces difficulty in complex brain functions and, more disturbingly, even after up to 6 months of abstinence these effects were still present.)
Solowij and coworkers made no claims that impairments are severe, or that they could not be reversed.
In reply to: Zwerling and associates. Journal of the American Medicine Association, vol. 264, pp.2639 -2643,1990. (Marijuana users had 55% more industrial accidents, 85% more injuries and a 78% increase in absenteeism. The mean absence rate from the job was 7.1% for marijuana users compared to 4% for non-users.)
I've got a book at work that goes into this in great detail, unfortunately I don't have it here... preemployement drug screening... I suspect, though I obviously have no proof, that things like turnover rate are higher for marijuana users as a function of lifestyle, rather than as a fuction of drug use. Accidents... the story is better told when considering how many of the people in question will also be coming to work while drunk, or on other drugs. This is the problem with using statistics... they can be interpretted in many different ways. Other experts in the field discount the improtance of preemployment drug testing... it seems to me that it is much more important to determine if workers in safety-intensive postions (truch drivers, and such) are taking drugs - while on the job.
In reply to: Brookoff D, Cook CS, Williams C, Mann CS. New England Journal of Medicine Aug.25,1994 pp 518- 522. Testing Reckless Drivers For Cocaine and Marijuana. (A total of 175 subjects were stopped for reckless driving, and 150 submitted urine samples for drug testing at the scene of arrest. 59% tested positive. 13% for cocaine, 33% for marijuana, 12% for both.)
And again it is important to consider the combination of marijuana with alcohol...
As for medical uses of marijuana, I'm going to leave that along for now, as results for most things are inconclusive (except effects on spastic pain -- it works better than most available drugs, according to a recently released report that I also don't have with me just right now). But really, all this medical mubo jumbo is beside the point... No researcher has been able to show that pot is a danger to society - in isolation - and, as such, it should not be illegal.
Sorry for the lack of brevity, and I hope that this has at least addressed some of your questions...
Brad.
|
|
|
|
|
jefffski
Jul 11, 2003, 12:29 AM
Post #238 of 355
(18474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 286
|
you seem very well informed. i am a layperson and cannot address all your questions. i will look for the sources you asked for.
i do see a big difference between putting drugs in my body and climbing though. i also said that i was ambivalent about the legal ssues surrounding pot, but i recognize the inherent risks in the status quo and in changing legislation. i do not want our society to end up using pot the same way we use alcohol and cigarettes and then 30 years later have to start figuring out how to reverse trends be0ause of new esearch.
i would rather see lots of research done, enough to eliminate single study problems and then work on changing legislation if necessary. until then we should put harsh penalties for dealers and leniency for simple possesion into place.
although i am not an academic i am less cycnical than you about results oriented research fueled by money.
as a teacher i am always interested in sharing info with my students. perhaps we can continue this worthwhile thread via email and stop boring the rest of the climbers here with our (my?) pedantic arguments.
gotta go climbing
|
|
|
|
|
mewalrus
Jul 11, 2003, 12:39 AM
Post #239 of 355
(18474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 132
|
In reply to: i do not want our society to end up using pot the same way we use alcohol and cigarettes and then 30 years later have to start figuring out how to reverse trends be0ause of new esearch.
I definately agree. Except that I do believe the harmful effects of alcohol and cigarrettes are worse than pot, but thats another issue.
There is one big thing in my mind. The illegality of marijuana makes it more addictive than if it was legal, seems strange but I experienced this in my life and then later after I had quit smokeing pot I figured out why.
I'll tell you later why I believe this is so and I have gotten some affirmations from people about this effect with other drugs as well.
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Jul 16, 2003, 3:11 PM
Post #240 of 355
(18474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
http://www.nbc6.com/charlotteobserver/nbc6-071603-ag-potbust.93a868f7.html
Check it out. The story starts getting really interesting (or relevant) at the end of paragraph four. Then paragraph five takes it home. :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
maynardgkrebs
Jul 16, 2003, 7:13 PM
Post #241 of 355
(18474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2003
Posts: 24
|
In reply to: "Once they use marijuana, and they're not getting the high they once got, they transition to harder drugs,” said Lt. Kelly Lovelace, York County Sheriff's Office. “They go to cocaine. They go to heroine. They go to some of the designer drugs, the ecstasy, those sorts of things, GHB. It’s just a transitionatory drug."
Who's the biggest idiot? The cop who regurgitates the myth that cannabis is a gateway drug? http://www.drugpolicy.org/...release/pr120302.cfm
(By the way: What the hell kind of word is "transitionatory?")
How about the reporter who simply took down the cop's words and obviously did no research into the truthfulness of his statements?
Or is the biggest moron the editor of this piece, who doesn't even know how to spell "heroin" correctly and didn't force the writer to report more than one side of this story?
|
|
|
|
|
maynardgkrebs
Jul 16, 2003, 7:25 PM
Post #242 of 355
(18474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2003
Posts: 24
|
Through painstaking research, I have discovered that more than 95% of all heroin and cocaine addicts drank milk when they were children. Obviously, milk is a gateway drug. We must act now to save the children! Milk must be banned! Dairy farmers must be imprisoned! Grocery store clerks (a.k.a. pushers) should be executed!
We have to act now! Think of the children!
|
|
|
|
|
czarcastic
Jul 16, 2003, 7:58 PM
Post #243 of 355
(18474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2003
Posts: 64
|
Personally I think that all of the Americans on this board that have spouted negatively about the weed should look to us Canadians on this issue. We actually spent time and money researching pot and frankly, every person that was part of the committee looked to decriminalization or outright legalization. Now if our politicians can just run our own country and not care what the U.S. thinks about our policies, maybe it will actually happen.
When will people realize that its just not as bad as alcohol, so why not legalize it? I guess it takes time to educate the masses.
|
|
|
|
|
jefffski
Jul 17, 2003, 4:41 AM
Post #244 of 355
(18474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 286
|
are you saying it's ok for kids to use drugs like tobacco, alcohol, caffeine or pot? i'm not about to suggest to any adult how to live his life. but kids are different.
kids are vulnerable to our influences. they see us using drugs recreationally, they see us having fun and believe that they can also. but they shouldn't and we should do whatever we can to delay their trial of drugs.
i think kids try pot because they're curious. most do nothing more and as they mature eventually stop or limit their usage. however, some kids who use pot eventually see it as a way of escaping their problems. some may graduate to harder drugs because the high is more intense and feels even better.
that may be okay for adults to do because many of us also have other skills and resources to deal with life's complications. but kids don't and drugs become their method.
by delaying trial of any drugs until they are mature enough to know the possible implications and until they are skilled enough to use drugs recreationally and not to solve their problems we may be able to stop people from getting into harder drugs.
so the cop may be right--not as concerns adults but as marijuana use concerns some young adults.
btw, i don't think telling kids to 'just say no' is not a solution either. helping kids find outlets for their energy, like climbing, sports, clubs or getting involved in bonafide organizations can help kids find ways to truly enjoy life without drugs.
does anybody here work with or have kids and believes it is okay for them to experiment with drugs?
i know i'm going to get a shipload of replies from potheads or former potheads who started using drugs as kids and are amazing people. good for you. you're in the majority. but have you met any kid who was like you, just a casual user who ended up ruining or almost ruining their life with drugs? i have, and it's not pretty. those kids started with pot.
flame away.
|
|
|
|
|
dead_milkman
Jul 17, 2003, 2:46 PM
Post #245 of 355
(18483 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 241
|
In reply to: are you saying it's ok for kids to use drugs like tobacco, alcohol, caffeine or pot? i'm not about to suggest to any adult how to live his life. but kids are different.
[flame]
Jesus Christ, Jeff, just when I thought that you might, just might have a cogent argument to present you go and spit out another red herring. Nobody said that it's all right for 'kids' to take drugs, so quit pretending that they did. I hope to god you don't coach the debate team at that school you teach at.
[/flame]
Besides that, there is still not one whit of evidence that pot is a 'gateway' drug, for kids or adults. This is yet another example of US infotainment containing misleading information funded - yes, funded - by the war on drugs. (Bet you didn't know that news programming gets cash from the White House for printing an anti drug slant)
That said:
Pot's bad for young children in large amounts... It stunts growth of various things - never good, if you ask me. But this is all moot once the majority of growth has occurred - and only applicable to chronic users anyhow - so if you define 'kids' as people under 18, then yes, 'kids' should very much be able to take the odd hoot if they like. They're old enough to work, drive, and f_ck, so why not? As a parent I would think it my responsibility to educate them as to the dangers of overdoing it... or taking 'harder' drugs, or having unprotected sex, or whathaveyou. But, frankly, I'd rather have my 'kid' out in the open with me, rather than sneaking off and going to his/her idiot schoolmates for advice.
But this is all hypothetical...
|
|
|
|
|
jefffski
Jul 17, 2003, 3:19 PM
Post #246 of 355
(18483 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 286
|
the vast majority of kids will be able to use drugs sensibly and come out no worse for wear but too many don't. that is the point of my argument against drug use and teens, a point which you seem to have missed.
it is these kids who wreck their lives through pot alone or by then trying and getting wacked by harder drugs.
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Jul 17, 2003, 3:32 PM
Post #247 of 355
(18483 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
In reply to: there is still not one whit of evidence that pot is a 'gateway' drug, for kids or adults....
I wonder how many junkies never smoked pot. I don't know, but my guess is 99% of crack or heroin users started "recreating" with pot. This is completely different from the milk drinkers or TV watchers rationale. Everybody does those things, whereas not everybody smokes pot.
Smoking pot is the first experience (for almost all pot smokers) of taking something to get a buzz. A real buzz. Not a sugar or caffeine buzz.
Flame over - Back to focussing on "getting a life". :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
jaylaka
Jul 17, 2003, 3:55 PM
Post #248 of 355
(18483 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 382
|
In reply to: does anybody here work with or have kids and believes it is okay for them to experiment with drugs?
i teach high school english. in my class, one of my primary goals is for my students to think critically about themselves and the world around them and be able to concisely and eloquently express their views, whether written or spoken.
many of our discussions are controversial issues (religion, homosexuality, drug use, etc) that arise in the literature we're reading as well as current events.
i recognize that high school students will make decisions (especially regarding relationships, sex, drugs, and alcohol) that have the potential to dramatically affect their lives. i tell them that - and emphasize that not only are they responsible for their choices, they are also responsible for recognizing the potential implications of said choices.
parents and teachers can only shelter kids for so long. between 14 and 18, kids are defining who they are in the world. and honestly, i think that most of us figure out who we want to be by trying out different things - and that might include taboo things like sex or drugs - as well as other things that involve sports or clubs.
our local police force recently decided to bring dogs in to search the school. (and they found nothing). but it opened up some good dialoges in our class. i told my students (these were my juniors) that i'm not ok with them coming to class drunk or high, or bringing alcohol or drugs to school. the class unanimously agreed that doing either would be pretty damn stupid. but you know what? i can't control what they choose to do on their own time - that's their call. if they choose to use alcohol/drugs or have sex, it's truly up to them. but if they get in trouble, then it's up to them to assume responsibility.
these kids know the score. i'm not going to lecture my anti-drug agenda or tell them how to live their lives. that would only backfire.
jen
|
|
|
|
|
maynardgkrebs
Jul 17, 2003, 6:50 PM
Post #249 of 355
(18483 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2003
Posts: 24
|
There are a couple of ways in which marijuana could sort of act as a gateway drug. These are the fault of the government, though, and really have nothing to do with the effects of marijuana.
Right now, our government has marijuana classified the same as heroin and LSD. Legally, it's considered more dangerous than cocaine. When a kid tries marijuana for the first time, it becomes obvious that he's been lied to--Pot really isn't as bad as he's been taught. The negative effects aren't that bad and he doesn't turn into a junkie instantly. Why would this kid think 'O.k., they lied to me about marijuana, but they are telling the truth about everything else'? More likely, this kid will say 'Damn, they lied to me about marijuana. They must be lying about everything else, too.'
An estimated one third of all Americans have smoked marijuana. The vast majority of these people do not go on to harder drugs. It's only logical that the kinds of people who will experiment with drugs will start out with the one that is most popular and readily available. The first drug that most hard drug addicts experiment with is tobacco, not marijuana.
All drugs should be legal and readily available for purchase by anyone over the age of 18, and our government should give honest warnings about the effects of drugs.
Obviously, the current system does not work. It's time for a truce in the Drug War.
|
|
|
|
|
dead_milkman
Jul 17, 2003, 7:33 PM
Post #250 of 355
(18483 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 241
|
In reply to: I wonder how many junkies never smoked pot. I don't know, but my guess is 99% of crack or heroin users started "recreating" with pot. This is completely different from the milk drinkers or TV watchers rationale. Everybody does those things, whereas not everybody smokes pot.
Lots and lots of people admitted to methadone programs do not smoke pot, nor did they - as it turns out. But you miss the point: in order to be a "gateway" drug one must show a causal linkage - this does not exist in this case.
Example: I can easily show a causal relationship - statisically - between smoking cigarettes and the probability of developing various life-threatening diseases. If one lives long enough, one will almost certainly develop a disease that can be directly linked to smoking. No relationship can be established, causally, between smoking pot and becomming addicted to so-called 'hard' drugs. People smoke marijuana for their entire lives without ever trying, and subsequently becomming dependent on 'hard' drugs.
Most of this is likely due to the fact that no addiction mechanism - physiologically - exists for cannabinoids. That, and unlike most other drugs, cannabinoids do not tend to lessen in effect over the lifetime of a smoker, eliminating the 'need' for the user to move onto bigger and better things.
Oh, I don't drink milk - nor did I as a child. And I've never once had the urge to try heroin... maybe there is some significance to the "milk drinkers ... rationale". At least as much significance to the 'gateway drug' claims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
