PDA

View Full Version : Will Drugs Become Legal ?



imnotanaddict
08-16-2003, 07:53 PM
http://reason.com/9511/BENFORDfeat.html

under the header "BEING HUMAN"



Other developments, just over the horizon, will probably force us to entirely rethink present ideas of good and evil. Within a generation, we will probably be able to make cocaine from a bacterial culture. Kids will grow it or morphine or opiumin bathtubs, not in elaborate labs.

This will do for our current drug prohibition what home-brewed beer did for Prohibition. Even easier ways are plausible: say, a bacterium which lives in your digestive tract and makes just the right level of cocaine every day. (Something like this has happened naturally. A patient turned up who was permanently drunk, from a yeast which made alcohol in his innards. Therapy freed him of a condition others might have envied.) Far more exotic methods of eluding detection, and of making new designer drugs, will no doubt emerge.

Such a ready supply will almost certainly doom a simple "War On Drugs" approach. Legalizing, taxing, and regulating their use will come to be far cheaper than following a Prohibition mentality against an ever-improving biotechnology.

In fact, I believe it already is cheaper and smarter. We have over 1.3 million in American prisons, the majority for drug-related crime. The average sentence for murder in California is for fewer years (eight) than the average sentence for drug crimes.

Prohibition of anything is about power and imposing a uniform value system. Technology in the next century will probably act against central control. This will push our cultural boundaries, with biotech steadily increasing the friction. In the end this may force a new social solution, resembling the European programs already using partial legalization, combined with the social pressure that has reduced tobacco and alcohol use.


I been under the impression that keeping drugs illegal was too "big money" for
them to ever legalize any but this article makes a lot of since.
Any veiws?

J'Pol
08-16-2003, 09:54 PM
Which drugs do you refer to when you ask "Will Drugs Become Legal."

Which jurisdiction do you refer to when you ask "Will Drugs Become Legal.

SodiumChloride
08-16-2003, 10:50 PM
If marijuana becomes legal, billions of state and federal funds could be freed up (along with the nonviolent prisoners). Those billions could be diverted to increase fighting cocaine, heroin, and other deadly drugs.

They should legalize marijuana and run ads urging people not to use it (like the smoking ads), because marijuana is basically as bad as cigarette smoking, except you get high first. Make a law saying that nobody under 21 (or 18?) should be allowed to smoke it. Long term effects of marijuana smoking are just as bad as smoking cigs, but perhaps slightly worse.

If people do toke up they should be urged to do it no more than once a week. Thats what i would do if it were legal. Also, no smoking while holding a public office :D

chalice
08-16-2003, 10:53 PM
I willl post my opinions in this thread but it requires sobriety.
Monday morning will yield the best results.

lynx
08-16-2003, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by SodiumChloride@16 August 2003 - 23:50
Also, no smoking while holding a public office :D
If it is legal, why not ?
You could say no eating, drinking, breathing while holding a public office.

Hmmm, I think you could be on to something here. ;)

SodiumChloride
08-16-2003, 11:01 PM
Because marijuana is a concious-altering drug. We dont want politicians making decisions while high. Just a precaucion

balamm
08-16-2003, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by SodiumChloride@16 August 2003 - 23:50
If marijuana becomes legal, billions of state and federal funds could be freed up (along with the nonviolent prisoners). Those billions could be diverted to increase fighting cocaine, heroin, and other deadly drugs.


I think the first priority would have to be money for the psyhcriatric care that would be neccesary to deal with increased cases of depression, psychosis, paranoia, etc.

Tell me those things are not related to the excessive use of marijuana and I'll tell you it's probably time to quit ;)

SodiumChloride
08-16-2003, 11:10 PM
The advertisements would prevent people from taking way too much of it, which will prevent most of the psychiatric care needed.

Another thing i neglected to mention is the crime rate will fall because the drug would be cheaper. It would be something like amsterdam, where it is already legal to take it in moderation.

edit: i dont want to give the impression that i am a toker, becuase i havent had a joint in my life. I would have a joint every few weeks if it were legal though. I would take it in moderation, like alcohol.

Biggles
08-16-2003, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by SodiumChloride@16 August 2003 - 23:01
Because marijuana is a concious-altering drug. We dont want politicians making decisions while high. Just a precaucion
Would we really be able to notice any difference??

If you listen to the evening sessions of the House of Commons many clearly have had a G and T too many. :rolleyes:

balamm
08-16-2003, 11:20 PM
Advertisements already tell us not to steal satelite signals, bandwidth, programs, music, etc.
Others tell us not to smoke, use products deemed "hot" by various world organisations, drink irresponsibly, think or speak derogatorily of other races or cultures, have unprotected sex, on and on and on......

With the permissive atmosphere certain subcultures have already created towards the use of Marijuana, I just don't see education or disclosure of fact having any effect whatsoever on someone who is inclined towards such things.

SodiumChloride
08-16-2003, 11:31 PM
The more somebody hears something, the more they think it's true. In the case of commercials airing messages not to use too much marijuana, pepole will get the message in time. It is already socially unacceptible to smoke a cigarette, and pot smoking is a bit more unacceptible.

I am absolutely sure thet if it is legallised, there would be a law stating no smoking marijuana in public places, only in private homes or out where there is no children hanging around.

balamm
08-16-2003, 11:38 PM
Remember though that cigarettes are Not new and novel. They've been abused for centuries. If the same thing were to happen with marijuana because of new freedoms, I'd be frightened. To put it mildly.

I've seen what happens to people who think they know moderation. It's not at all pleasant.

SodiumChloride
08-16-2003, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by balamm@16 August 2003 - 16:38
I've seen what happens to people who think they know moderation. It's not at all pleasant.
I absolutely agree with you there. People can get addicted to some of the harder drugs and never become sober again. If people can become educated and learn more about the dangers of drugs and alcohol, then the problem will be less than most might expect. The people who are making our laws grew up in the 60s, when drugs like marijuana were used (and in some cases, abused). Those are the people who have the best overall opinion on the matter

evilbagpuss
08-17-2003, 01:13 AM
Cannabis is not physically addictive, it is no more harmful than tobacco and is less harmful than alcohol.

A tiny number of people will experience mental difficulties, paranoia etc, but these are temporary and besides this only occurs with extremely excessive usage.

Other reasons to legalise it are..

1. Free up police/court time.
2. Free up prison space for violent offenders.
3. Free non-violent offenders who shouldnt be in prison anyway.
3. Raise more money through taxes for Gvt, healthcare, police etc etc

Now I'd like to deal with the "gateway drug" myth.

The reason its seen as a gateway drug is because kids have to go to gangsters to buy it. This leads them into a criminal underworld where harder drugs are available. Also, everyone I know started drinking before they started toking, so doesnt that make alcohol a gateway drug too?

If it were legalised, cannabis would be put into a social framework much in the same way that alcohol is today. It is seen as a bad/sad thing if you start drinking at 9:00am in the morning. I know some people who start smoking at that time and think nothing of it.

This leads us back to the paranoia issue. If it were legalised and socially acceptable people would be less likely to abuse it and cause themselves problems. A consensus of what constitutes use/abuse would be reached.

Also, I suspect that many of these mental problems are caused by the crap the criminals mix with cannabis resin. (plastic, rubber you name it). If it were legal, at least you would know what you're smoking. There's a parallel with US prohibition here too. Back then people ended up drinking all sorts of shit (meths etc) which had been mixed into normal alcohol and thus caused them severe health problems.

Would legalisation create more potheads? No.

There is a higher % of pot smokers in the UK compared to Holland. Considering Holland is also a more liberal culture that should put this 'legalisation= more potheads' myth to bed too.

Legalisation would destroy the black market; less money for criminals and less gang warfare. Cannabis is a huge market worth tens of millions every year. To the hardcore gangsters its well worth a few murders and plenty of beatings to corner the market.

Also people dont get violent because they're stoned. Walk through any city centre at 2:00am on a Saturday night and as your stepping round the patches of blood and vomit have a think about why our legal system(s) are so divorced from reality.

So.. lets stop wasting police/court time, lets stop locking up kids who arent real criminals, lets stop putting money in the gangsters pockets whilst they poison a relatively harmless and, in some cases, beneficial product.

The only people who are happy with the status quo are opportunistic (usually right wing) politicians, private prison companies, gangsters and tabloid newspapers.

Lets listen to the police who deal with this issue on the frontline every day. If you get caught with hash in the UK the police usually confiscate it and send you on your way. They know its harmless, they dont want to waste time on such a trivial issue and they dont want to saddle a decent person with a criminal record.

The above is taken from various personal experiences. Both mine and those of many other people I know.

Inevitable
08-17-2003, 01:24 AM
they should just make weed legal and ban the rest of the drugs.

balamm
08-17-2003, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 02:13
Cannabis is not physically addictive, it is no more harmful than tobacco and is less harmful than alcohol.

A tiny number of people will experience mental difficulties, paranoia etc, but these are temporary and besides this only occurs with extremely excessive usage.


Both of these statments are pure drivel.
The problem with smoking dope is it makes you a dope. You haven't got the faculties left to reason out the effects. What seems normal to you is an illusion. You are not what you once were. And that also comes from personal experience. Mine and people who's lives I've seen destroyed by this crap.
The effects are not temporary. They do diminish somewhat with time but the stigma for some will be permanent.

It may be that your experience is based on diluted goods.
In British Columbia, the quality and potency has been genetically manipulated to the point where it could almost be considered a poison.
It does in fact cause some people to be hospitalized.
You can expect this problem to increase even more with decriminalisation or legalisation.
There is just no stopping it.

imnotanaddict
08-17-2003, 01:45 AM
Which drugs do you refer to when you ask "Will Drugs Become Legal."

I left this open just as the article did. But...
I see the pro's and con's of some drugs being legal. I also see it as a "catch 22".
I admit that most of my life I have thought that pot should be legal. Now I guess
I still do but for different reasons. I don't think people should be sent to jail for
possession. If alcohol should be legal I think pot should be also. But I also have
a problem with this kind of logic. Where does it stop. If you legalize pot why not
cocaine? Why not prescription drugs? Why not the big H? One major difference
would be that one drug can be Physically addictive (heroin) while the other can only be psychologically addictive (Marijuanna). It's hard for me to see any justifacation in the legalization of hard drugs on the one hand/on the other, the "war on drugs" does'nt seem to have made much of an impact on availability.
Legalization would wipe out a significant amount of crime from organized to
your corner dealer. Also drug related crimes, theft I assume would go down
because of cheaper prices, while DUI'S would go up. .(just guessing on that).



edit: i dont want to give the impression that i am a toker, becuase i havent had a joint in my life. I would have a joint every few weeks if it were legal though. I would take it in moderation, like alcohol.

By the legalization it could inadvertently send the message (especailly to youth)
that its okay and exceptable to use.


Because marijuana is a concious-altering drug. We dont want politicians making decisions while high. Just a precaucion

I would assume marijauna use would be handled just like alcohol. Not to be used before or during work hours, or when operarating a moving vehicle, etc.

imnotanaddict
08-17-2003, 01:58 AM
what the heck?
I tried to post could'nt, had to repost-but now I'm quoting myself.

fixed above reply/please ignore

evilbagpuss
08-17-2003, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by balamm
Both of these statments are pure drivel.


I suggest you study the literature associated with this issue. I studied it at University recently as part of a neuropsychology module and I assure you, current medical knowledge (and personal experience) dictates that cannabis is not physically addictive.

Adster
08-17-2003, 02:03 AM
They should make it legal why???

becasue there will be less crime most ppl break ins and shit for drug money

make it legal then the idiots who want to take that shit can fuck up their body and die who gives a shit about them

Everose
08-17-2003, 02:36 AM
There are a lot of issues to consider here. I am one who has serious reactions to drugs given with a prescription, but is also addicted to nicotine.

But I have also helped raise two children whose parents were on street drugs, and whose rights were terminated because of neglecting and abusing their children.

There are a lot of innocents that would be effected with the legalization of drugs.

A lot more to consider than empyting jails.

Neverose

SodiumChloride
08-17-2003, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by Neverose@16 August 2003 - 19:36
But I have also helped raise two children whose parents were on street drugs, and whose rights were terminated because of neglecting and abusing their children.
Which type of drugs? The kind that make you peaceful or the kind that make you go insane?

clocker
08-17-2003, 02:55 AM
Originally posted by balamm+16 August 2003 - 19:35--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (balamm &#064; 16 August 2003 - 19:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 02:13
Cannabis is not physically addictive, it is no more harmful than tobacco and is less harmful than alcohol.

A tiny number of people will experience mental difficulties, paranoia etc, but these are temporary and besides this only occurs with extremely excessive usage.


Both of these statments are pure drivel.
The problem with smoking dope is it makes you a dope. You haven&#39;t got the faculties left to reason out the effects. What seems normal to you is an illusion. You are not what you once were. And that also comes from personal experience. Mine and people who&#39;s lives I&#39;ve seen destroyed by this crap.
The effects are not temporary. They do diminish somewhat with time but the stigma for some will be permanent.

It may be that your experience is based on diluted goods.
In British Columbia, the quality and potency has been genetically manipulated to the point where it could almost be considered a poison.
It does in fact cause some people to be hospitalized.
You can expect this problem to increase even more with decriminalisation or legalisation.
There is just no stopping it. [/b][/quote]
Amazingly, I find myself in complete agreement with Evilbagpuss on this issue.

Perhaps almost 40 years of use has made me a dope.

In my opinion, the problem with smoking dope is not that "it makes you a dope", rather that it can make you a criminal.

Everose
08-17-2003, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by SodiumChloride+16 August 2003 - 22:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SodiumChloride @ 16 August 2003 - 22:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Neverose@16 August 2003 - 19:36
But I have also helped raise two children whose parents were on street drugs, and whose rights were terminated because of neglecting and abusing their children.
Which type of drugs? The kind that make you peaceful or the kind that make you go insane? [/b][/quote]
Who knows? Even alcohol abuse can result in fetal alcohol syndrome in a child.

Maybe we could just legalize this for everyone that agrees to sterilization????


;) :D

Everose
08-17-2003, 03:36 AM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@16 August 2003 - 21:13


A tiny number of people will experience mental difficulties, paranoia etc, but these are temporary and besides this only occurs with extremely excessive usage.

Oh, that makes a difference then. Only paranoia. mental difficulties, etc.

I think I will get a pre-skin test before just in case.

All I was worried about were the &#39;munchies.


Now you say there is possible paranoia?

Like....did anyone see me do this? Are they still watching? Can I outwit them? Am I in trouble? Did you see that cop? Calm down, breathe in, breathe out. Ten deep breaths...dang, that cop is still there.....oh, probably just my imagination. I sure would like a brownie about right now.&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; dang, he is headed this way. Oh no :o Gulp. gag, gag, gag, gulp gulp&#33;&#33;&#33; ;)



;) :D :lol: :lol: :lol:

imnotanaddict
08-17-2003, 04:38 AM
Which type of drugs? The kind that make you peaceful or the kind that make you go insane?
I hope drugs like PCP are never considered for legalization because they truely
can cause insanity.
But anyone that thinks even pot is the utopian drug are either justifying the use of
or are deluding themself. The lesser evil I tend to agree. Smoking pot kills
brain cells that do not rejuvinate themselves.


http://www.theantidrug.com/drug_info/drugs..._marijuana.html (http://www.theantidrug.com/drug_info/drugs_marijuana.html)
Effects of Marijuana on the Brain. Researchers have found that THC changes the way in which sensory information gets into and is acted on by the hippocampus. This is a component of the brain&#39;s limbic system that is crucial for learning, memory, and the integration of sensory experiences with emotions and motivations. Investigations have shown that THC suppresses neurons in the information-processing system of the hippocampus. In addition, researchers have discovered that learned behaviors, which depend on the hippocampus, also deteriorate.

Effects on the Lungs. Someone who smokes marijuana regularly may have many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers have. These individuals may have daily cough and phlegm, symptoms of chronic bronchitis, and more frequent chest colds. Continuing to smoke marijuana can lead to abnormal functioning of lung tissue injured or destroyed by marijuana smoke.


http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread14040.shtml
The House of Sober Second Thought has endorsed the outright legalization of marijuana. Prohibition advocates are clamouring to have their voices heard.
Both camps have indoctrinated themselves to such a degree that when approached by legislators who wish to re-examine our nation&#39;s marijuana policies, they downshift into automatic, dogmatic, sound-bite machines.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin has said that "pot is certainly less grave than alcohol and tobacco as far as health is concerned."

Pro-pot groups love using that argument. They promote the concept that marijuana is a benign recreational drug, far less deadly or addictive than cigarettes or alcohol.

With respect, anyone who has spent time on a university campus in the past few years has gleaned enough empirical data to wholly refute that claim. As a freshman, I had a friend with a near-photographic memory and a desire to experiment with anything and everything.

Four years later, he was nearly two years away from graduation, he had a world-class collection of bongs and he frequently forgot why he had even walked into a room. Deadly? Definitely not. Benign? Ask my friend. He&#39;s probably still in school, trying to graduate.

We are told that if Canada legalizes pot and brings it under the umbrella of government regulation, there will be no more black market. There will be no more organized crime running the show and our kids will be safer.

The funny thing about criminals is that they don&#39;t always agree with lawmakers. In a legalized Canada, the government would issue licences to growers and sellers, tax marijuana cigarettes at a hefty rate and regulate THC levels, the key ingredient in pot.

The government would have instituted a system delivering high-priced, low-grade pot, the perfect framework for the creation of a brand-new black market.

If you only listened to supporters of legalization, you&#39;d think that all that ails our society is rooted in our drug laws: Loosen them up, and everyone would have jobs, schools would be safe and we&#39;d all live forever. Such an idea is as ludicrous as total prohibition.

The problem is that neither side has ever painted a realistic picture of the future. The Marijuana Party would have much more credibility in the eyes of the public if it conceded that legalization would have some negative effects on society. Meanwhile, prohibitionists should stop endorsing such an apocalyptic view of a marijuana-friendly Canada.

In order to make informed decisions, legislators need more than battle lines drawn in the sand and catchy slogans from pressure groups.

Canadians want to know how our border policy with the United States would change if our drug laws suddenly became less harmonized. Would every Canadian under the age of 30 be searched at the border? Would the cost of travel increase?

Canadians want to know if medicinal marijuana would be covered by medicare and they want to know if smoking a joint behind the wheel is tantamount to drinking and driving. Without these details, we cannot take that great leap into a world of a more sensible and compassionate view of marijuana.

The Senate committee has taken a bold first step in changing our drug laws, but until those seeking to legalize pot start painting a more realistic portrait of a Canada brimming with legal weed, legislators will tell them to take their recommendations, stick them in their collective pipe and smoke it.

Complete Title: Where There&#39;s Toke ...Marijuana Law Debate Must Get Realistic

Source: Toronto Sun (CN ON)
Author: Ben Mulroney -- For the Sun
Published: September 8, 2002
Copyright: 2002 Canoe Limited Partnership
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.fyitoronto.com/torsun.shtml

Related Articles & Web Site:

Marijuana Party of Canada
http://www.marijuanaparty.org/

Don&#39;t Legalize Pot, Decriminalize It
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14032.shtml

Activists, Experts Hail Senate&#39;s Report on Pot
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13995.shtml

Legalize Marijuana, Senate Committee Says
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13989.shtml

Powdered Water
08-17-2003, 05:17 AM
I for one hope that drugs continue to be illegal. I&#39;ve seen too many people die that i care about to try and buy in to the legalisation argument. imnotanaddict you sound just like me about 7 or 8 years ago before I got sober and began to learn the real facts about what drugs do to people. I hope you live long enough to see for your self. This is not a shot at you this fact in my life. The gate-way myth is not a myth sorry.

evilbagpuss
08-17-2003, 05:19 AM
@imnotanaddict

All recreational drugs destroy brain cells and alcohol is far far worse in that respect. It really is a non-issue.

Now.. no one is saying cannabis is a harmless &#39;utopian&#39; drug. The argument is that it is less harmful than alcohol and that criminalizing millions of otherwise law abiding citizens causes much more harm and is a waste of resources.

Given the choice I would rather go out looking for a job whilst in possession of a poor short term memory as opposed to a criminal record.

Anyway.. at least when your smoking dope with strangers you dont have to worry about some idiot shoving a pint glass in your face. As well as liver transplants etc the NHS spends tens of millions (if not more) cleaning up the damage people do to themselves and each other when they&#39;re completely pissed out of their minds.

For me the bottom line is that pot allows you far more control over your actions compared to alcohol and unlike alcohol its not physically addictive.

balamm
08-17-2003, 05:24 AM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 06:19

For me the bottom line is that pot allows you far more control over your actions compared to alcohol and unlike alcohol its not physically addictive.
You just keep right on telling yourself that ;)

Someday you may even believe it enough not to have to look for validation in a forum like this.

Powdered Water
08-17-2003, 05:29 AM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 05:19

Anyway.. at least when your smoking dope with strangers you dont have to worry about some idiot shoving a pint glass in your face. As well as liver transplants etc the NHS spends tens of millions (if not more) cleaning up the damage people do to themselves and each other when they&#39;re completely pissed out of their minds.


Intresting theory I suppose you would rather deal with lung cancer and heart disease, but hey whatever floats your boat.

evilbagpuss
08-17-2003, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by powdered water+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (powdered water)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I&#39;ve seen too many people die that i care about to try and buy in to the legalisation argument.[/b]

People dying from pot? Unless you mean cancer from inhaling smoke thats just plain wrong.

<!--QuoteBegin-powdered water
The gate-way myth is not a myth sorry. [/quote]

If you look at the drug usage rates in Holland compared to other countries you&#39;ll see that the reason its a &#39;gateway drug&#39; is because its illegal. Theres nothing special about pot that causes it to lead people into that scene other than the fact it resides in the criminal scene due to the law.

Again I have to ask.. all my friends started drinking before they started smoking pot so why isnt alcohol seen as a gateway drug? The truth is that it is.

Once you ingest a substance, any substance, to change your perception you&#39;ve entered through that gateway.

All drugs are the same in that respect.

I even know a group of lads who went from alcohol straight to cocaine and didnt bother with pot at all. On the other hand I dont do anything apart from pot. I dont even drink anymore&#33;

So no.. this idea that theres something special about pot itself that makes people do harder drugs is just wrong. Its the social framework around it that creates this &#39;gateway illusion.&#39;

titey
08-17-2003, 05:37 AM
I don&#39;t know if it could be done, but if it were possible to test for marijuana use in a similar way that alcohol can be detected (eg breathalizers), then I would see no reason that pot shouldn&#39;t be legalized - so long as it&#39;s use was restricted much the same way as alcohol is: No driving under the influence.
No use by persons under the age of 18.
License required for sale.
Till there&#39;s any proof that pot is more harmful than tobacco or alcohol, why should it be treated differently?
Perhaps it would have even less appeal to users if it weren&#39;t tabu.

However, the other drugs mentioned (heroin, cocaine, etc.) should remain illegal.


(IMO)

evilbagpuss
08-17-2003, 05:38 AM
Originally posted by balamm
You just keep right on telling yourself that&nbsp;

Someday you may even believe it enough not to have to look for validation in a forum like this.

validation? Think of a better one mate&#33;

My beliefs are based on personal experience and scientific knowledge.

Spend an evening with some potheads, then spend an evening out on the town getting pissed. Then read up on how both drugs work on the nervous system

Then come back, describe both evenings and explain to me how you have more control when your drunk.

In other words come back when you&#39;ve got something substantial to base your ideas on :rolleyes:

@powdered water

liver transplants and violence versus heart disease and cancer? Easy choice :D

Powdered Water
08-17-2003, 05:44 AM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 05:38
My beliefs are based on personal experience and scientific knowledge.



@powdered water

liver transplants and violence versus heart disease and cancer? Easy choice :D
I&#39;m not sure but I think you just proved my point. :blink:

balamm
08-17-2003, 05:48 AM
lol, or are they based on personal experimentation which has left you incapable of properly judging?

I&#39;ve done both and I much prefer the company of drinkers to a housefull of paranoid couch potatoes who believe they are philosophicaly correct while their children run around in unchanged diapers and dirty dishes and pizza boxes clutter the house.
Yes, the phone bill can wait, the next ounce is far more important. ;)

Laundry? What&#39;s that? :lol:

evilbagpuss
08-17-2003, 05:50 AM
@powdered water

What was your point again?

At the very worst they&#39;re both as harmful as each other. Thats ignoring the propensity for violence that alcohol produces though...

But.. one&#39;s illegal, one&#39;s not.

I&#39;d rather take my chances with Cancer in 50 years time as opposed to having someone smash a pint glass into my face today. I&#39;ve seen it happen on more than one occassion. Its not nice and you dont necessarily have to do anything to deserve it.

evilbagpuss
08-17-2003, 05:55 AM
Originally posted by balaam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (balaam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>lol, or are they based on personal experimentation which has left you incapable of properly judging?[/b]

Hey, if I can get all A&#39;s at A-level and successfully work through a degree I think Im pretty capabale of judging it.



<!--QuoteBegin-balaam
I&#39;ve done both and I much prefer the company of drinkers to a housefull of paranoid couch potatoes who believe they are philosophicaly correct while their children run around in unchanged diapers and dirty dishes and pizza boxes clutter the house.
Yes, the phone bill can wait, the next ounce is far more important.&nbsp;

Laundry? What&#39;s that?&nbsp; [/quote]

hmm, those smokers do not sound like the people I smoke with.

Of course no one who drinks alcohol has kids running about in unchanged diapers or dirty dishes or pizza boxes lying around. I bet that never happens&#33; :rolleyes:

Come on mate, your clutching at straws now :)

Pot does not produce violence in normally non-violent people.
You cant OD on pot and die.
You cant become physically addicted to pot.

Case closed :)

Powdered Water
08-17-2003, 06:00 AM
Originally posted by balamm@17 August 2003 - 05:48

Yes, the phone bill can wait, Laundry? What&#39;s that? :lol:
B, have you been looking in my window I&#39;ve been off the weed for a long time now but I&#39;ve still got some issues ya know?

O.K. evilbagpuss you win you can be right and i&#39;ll be happy. :D

balamm
08-17-2003, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 06:55


Of course no one who drinks alcohol has kids running about in unchanged diapers or dirty dishes or pizza boxes lying around. I bet that never happens&#33; :rolleyes:


You cant OD on pot and die.
You cant become physically addicted to pot.

Case closed :)
Are we speaking of hardcore alcoholics or casual drinkers? I was under the impression that you were not speaking of people who are hard core users of marijuana. I could point out extreme examples of that just as easily.

You can&#39;t OD and die from marijuana?
As I suspected, you most certainly don&#39;t have a proper refference for your arguments then. Visit one of our local OR&#39;s any weekend and spend some time with a teen who&#39;s been admitted after smoking BC&#39;s finest for the first time.
Most wish they could die. It&#39;s that bad.

evilbagpuss
08-17-2003, 06:06 AM
lol @ powdered water

Its not a matter of &#39;winning&#39; its a matter of true and false. You started off by saying you&#39;d seen people die from pot and that the gateway myth is not a myth.

The 1st one is definitely wrong unless your referring to cancer, the 2nd is highly dubious without any reasoning to back it up.

Sorry but I have this thing about challenging misinfomation in public places lest it be taken as gospel truth by the masses :P

By all means, be happy though :D

evilbagpuss
08-17-2003, 06:17 AM
Originally posted by balaam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (balaam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Are we speaking of hardcore alcoholics or casual drinkers? [/b]

In terms of violence? Both.


Originally posted by balaam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (balaam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I was under the impression that you were not speaking of people who are hard core users of marijuana. I could point out extreme examples of that just as easily.
[/b]

Yup you have hardcore marijuana users too and they still dont get violent or OD.

<!--QuoteBegin-balaam@

You can&#39;t OD and die from marijuana?
[/quote]

NO&#33;&#33; Its a scientific fact&#33;&#33;

<!--QuoteBegin-balaam

As I suspected, you most certainly don&#39;t have a proper refference for your arguments then. Visit one of our local OR&#39;s any weekend and spend some time with a teen who&#39;s been admitted after smoking BC&#39;s finest for the first time.
Most wish they could die. It&#39;s that bad. [/quote]

LOL&#33;&#33;&#33; Have you ever seen that film reefer madness?

"Its that bad"

Listen if you drink a shitload of whisky as an introduction to alcohol you might feel like you want to die, and if you drink enough you could easily die. Thats a fact.

If you smoke shitloads of strong pot for the 1st time you may feel like you want to die BUT YOU WILL NOT DIE&#33;

Its a medical/scientific fact&#33; Show me one person who has died from a pot overdose. You cant because they dont exist&#33;

Sorry to say this but if you think you can OD and die from pot you dont know what your talking about.

Powdered Water
08-17-2003, 06:21 AM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 06:06
lol @ powdered water

Its not a matter of &#39;winning&#39; its a matter of true and false. You started off by saying you&#39;d seen people die from pot and that the gateway myth is not a myth.

The 1st one is definitely wrong unless your referring to cancer, the 2nd is highly dubious without any reasoning to back it up.

Sorry but I have this thing about challenging misinfomation in public places lest it be taken as gospel truth by the masses&nbsp; :P&nbsp;

By all means, be happy though&nbsp; :D
lol yourself evilbagpuss, these facts you are describing are based in your mind I too have seen people O/D on pot. All the circumstances you describe for yourself and your mates should end with a big YET. Just because it hasn&#39;t happened to you does&#39;nt mean it won&#39;t. To coin A phrase case closed.

evilbagpuss
08-17-2003, 06:25 AM
Interesting... so tell me about these so called OD&#39;s you&#39;ve witnessed.

You may wish to check the definition of an OD first though. Freaking out at how stoned you are does not constitute an OD.

So.. tell me all about it :)

As for the YET&#33; 10 years and Im still waiting :lol: :lol: :lol:

balamm
08-17-2003, 06:31 AM
I&#39;ll contact the people in charge of those records on monday if you like because it is a fact&#33;

Getting ill from whole shitload of whiskey is expected. And yes you might wish you could die. Metaphorically speaking.

Several tokes off some high grade locally grown pot has a completely different effect and you should damn well admit that.

Fear is extreme in these cases. It&#39;s not just simple nausea and dizziness. It has an effect on the heart and lungs that registers on an ECG and other equipment.
Violent outbursts are not uncommon. Physical and psychological trauma is very real. Drugs are occasionally needed to counter the overdose just as they would be in a case of heroin overdose. Restraints are also required at times.

All from a few tokes off your harmless herb.

legalisation?

Talk to me again when you have real facts and not some useless tripe you &#39;ve read in high times.

evilbagpuss
08-17-2003, 07:05 AM
Before I debunk these myths...


Originally posted by balamm
Getting ill from whole shitload of whiskey is expected. And yes you might wish you could die. Metaphorically speaking.

No you could die. Literally. A medical man skating round the issue of alcohol poisoning? Naughty ;)

Now onto the good stuff.

As I suspected your definition of an overdose is not the official one.

You mentioned various medical terms.. ECG, restraints etc

I will therefore assume that you work in the medical field and will further assume that you know what the Therapeutic Index of a substance means. When I tell you that it is 30,000 for THC you should know what I mean. When I tell you the index for alcohol is about 5 - 10 (if memory serves me correctly) you should see the point I&#39;ve been trying to get you to accept for the last hour.

OVERDOSE MYTH

power point version..

http://psych.umb.edu/faculty/adams/spring2002/may7.ppt

HTML version

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:FOM4D...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 (http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:FOM4D1UCwSMJ:psych.umb.edu/faculty/adams/spring2002/may7.ppt+%22Therapeutic+Index%22+THC+cannabis+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

Important part:

"Safety – no confirmed cases of death from cannabis overdose

Greatest concern – car accidents

Therapeutic Index = 30,000

Among least toxic drugs known – definitely least toxic psychoactive recreational drug."

My whole argument has been that you cannot die from high levels of cannabis/ THC. Your talking about someone having a major freak out. As I said earlier thats not an overdose. i.e its not life threatening.

GATEWAY MYTH

@powdered water

You havent even offered any evidence to support this outdated &#39;theory&#39; but I feel like I should offer you some to debunk it.

http://www.ukcia.org/effects/gateway01.php

Yes this is from a pro-cannabis organisation but as you can see there are many many scientific studies referenced and your more than welcome to verify them all.

CONCLUSION

So there you have it.

Alcohol (in large amounts) can kill within hours of ingestion and is physically addictive.

Cannabis could kill you if you could smoke 30,000 joints (lol&#33;) and its not physically addictive and moreover there is no known record of anyone dying from cannabis poisoning.

There I&#39;ve proved the world isnt flat. I&#39;m going to get some much needed sleep.

Enjoy.

imnotanaddict
08-17-2003, 07:31 AM
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/n...ges/5054418.htm (http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/special_packages/5054418.htm)
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/safeuse.htm
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2093.html
backissues -> CC33 -> Marijuana overdose?
by Ed Rosenthal (31 Aug, 2001) Can you overdose on cannabis?

How do I know that I have an overdose of cannabis? What are the symptom or facts that alert me?

Armand,
Curepipe, Mauritius


The Drug Awareness Warning Network Annual Report, published by the US federal government contains a statistical compilation of all drug deaths which occur in the United States. According to this report, there has never been a death recorded from the use of marijuana by natural causes. No one knows the total number of deaths caused by enforcement of marijuana prohibition laws.

Unlike opiates, barbituates or amphetamines, there seems to be little risk from the use of large amounts of marijuana. When a person smokes too much s/he feels very tired and lies down to enjoy a soothing nap or sleep. I call it "overtoking".

When people swallow large amounts of hashish, occasionally they vomit, which is their body&#39;s way of saying, "You took too much."







http://my.highschooljournalism.org/nc/mant...id=285&aid=2877 (http://my.highschooljournalism.org/nc/manteo/mhs/article.cfm?eid=285&aid=2877)

Myth vs. fact: the dope on how pot affects users’ health

By Alexandra Argiroff

Nearly 69 million Americans over 12 years old have tried marijuana at least once. Currently, the anti-drug campaign is trying to curb this number through magazine and TV ads that show cold, hard facts about the dangers of smoking pot.
But before these advertisements were aired, several “urban legends” circulated about the health risks of smoking pot, from reduction of the size of male genitalia to death from overdosing. Here’s the truth about what smoking marijuana can do to the human body.

nMyth: Smoking marijuana is less harmful than smoking cigarettes.

Fact: Cannabis actually contains about 50% more tar than tobacco, which irritates the lungs and may lead to head, neck and lung cancer. In fact, according to www.drug-statistics.com, the daily use of one to three marijuana joints causes the same lung damage and risk for cancer as smoking five times as many cigarettes. Also, while cannabis may not have been that potent in the ‘60s, today’s plant is 10 to 15 times stronger than it was then. Also, marijuana is often laced with other drugs such as heroine and crack which are also harmful to the body.

nMyth: A person can die from overdosing on marijuana.

Fact: While smoking pot is speculated to cause terminal cancer, users cannot die from overdosing on THC (the active ingredient in cannabis). In fact, for a 160-pound person to reach a lethal dose of this chemical, they would have to smoke about 900 joints in one sitting.

nMyth: Marijuana is not addictive.

Fact: According to www.drug-statistics.com, if a person tries it once they won’t necessarily become be hooked. But if a user starts to seek out and take the drug compulsively, then he may have a problem.

nMyth: Smoking pot does not affect a person’s driving.

Fact: People high on marijuana show lack of coordination similar to that of people who have had too much to drink, according to www.drug-statistics.com. After smoking one joint, a person’s reaction time for motor skills such as driving is reduced by 41 percent. It is reduced by 63 percent after smoking two joints.

nMyth: Using marijuana reduces the size of male genitalia.

Fact: Smoking pot has no effect on the size of men’s genitalia, however it does reduce the number, quality and mobility of their sperm, which can affect their fertility.

nMyth: Marijuana has no medicinal use.

Fact: While the scientists are still not sure about the exact medicinal uses of marijuana, it has been used to treat over 50 diseases including Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, cancer, Parkinson’s disease, genital herpes and hives.


imnotanaddict you sound just like me about 7 or 8 years ago before I got sober and began to learn the real facts about what drugs do to people. I hope you live long enough to see for your self.
For the record I&#39;ve been drug and alcohol free for sometime.

titey
08-17-2003, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by imnotanaddict@17 August 2003 - 02:31
For the record I&#39;ve been drug and alcohol free for sometime.
Just addicted to K++ eh? ;)


( :o Is that the same as "Special K"?)

evilbagpuss
08-17-2003, 07:37 AM
@imnotanaddict

Excellent post.

I would query whether the addiction part refers to psychological or physical addiction (I suspect the former) and I&#39;ve never come across crack laced weed in my 10 year &#39;career&#39; but apart from that good myth debunking stuff :)

titey
08-17-2003, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 02:37
@imnotanaddict

Excellent post.
:o Are you still awake?

Is it a sleepless night in the flat world? ;)

balamm
08-17-2003, 07:49 AM
I see. So suffering cardiac arrest and dying as a result of the use of marijuana is not actually considered harmfull.
Or dying from marijuana.

And judging by all these reports, it should now be safe to forgo the use of protective wear when harvesting and cleaning marijuana. The kids will like that. It is mostly youngish teen girls who do this job. At least in my area.

See the problem is that even the reports that cite reports as being out of date... are out of date.
10 times as strong? fuck that. We grow that shit outside. The clones that have come out of UBC research labs are now mainstream every day stock. So much more powerfull that to compare it with the samples used in your studies is laughable.
It&#39;s like comparing thai to a bag of mexican seeds and stems.

titey
08-17-2003, 07:53 AM
:blink: Pardon my ignorance b, but do they really grow that much pot in Canada?

Back in the day.... all the good shit came from Columbia.... but that was a long time ago I guess. :huh:

balamm
08-17-2003, 08:10 AM
In about half the homes on an average street here titey.
In the evening, you might actually get ill if you went outside and took a deep breath while one of the neighbors is "venting".

It smells like a whole herd of skunks has just been run over.

Firetrucks are a common site at rental homes too. The renters will fill the attic with stems and leaves and torch it when they move out. Other times, it&#39;s just all the excessive and poorly connected wiring that sets it off.

Many million dollar homes have been destroyed to farm pot indoors. They even remove the floors to increase the growing area or dig cellers which collapse. I&#39;ve seen bedrooms lined with sheet plastic to a few feet up the walls and then filled with dirt. They also collapse under the weight occasionaly.

It&#39;s a running game now to build homes, rent them to growers, have the house destroyed for one or two crops which nets millions, claim insurance, and build a few more.

It&#39;s probably a larger industry than forestry for us now.

titey
08-17-2003, 08:14 AM
http://www.emule-project.net/board/html/emoticons/shock.gif


Huh&#33;

Guess I better crawl back under my rock ........ things are weirder out here in the real world than I realized. :blink:

balamm
08-17-2003, 08:33 AM
To give you some refference, the drugs grown locally are so potent that one gram would be equivalent to several ounces of the very best to ever come out of Columbia.
An extremely good thai stick would be on par with a semi fat joint grown here.

One pin joint would last days if you only smoked enough to get the same effect that mexican gave.
And people have become tolerant to this new stuff. I know some that go through several ounces a week.
Just try cutting them off and then tell me there&#39;s no physical or psychological addiction.

imnotanaddict
08-17-2003, 08:36 AM
QUOTE (imnotanaddict @ 17 August 2003 - 02:31)
For the record I&#39;ve been drug and alcohol free for sometime.&nbsp;


Just addicted to K++ eh?&nbsp; titey
I must take the 5th on that one titey.By the by what made you switch UN&#39;S?
You are aka tite-wad are&#39;nt you or is he duct-taped-in the closet?

evilbagpuss

I would query whether the addiction part refers to psychological or physical addiction (I suspect the former) and I&#39;ve never come across crack laced weed in my 10 year &#39;career&#39; but apart from that good myth debunking stuff

From what info I&#39;ve ever read pot can be psychologically addicting but not physical.
unlike alcohol, can be physically addicting after prolonged use. Withdrawals/DT&#39;S.
And luckyly when I did smoke I never ran across an laced weed either.

As far as pot being more potent today I&#39;m not sure of that true Skunk I grant you
is something to write home about but if I were still smocking I&#39;de trade evenin forsome 70&#39;s and 80&#39;s - Connoissear-Red Bud, Gold Bud, Rainbow, from Columbia.
I usually make a point not to use profanity in forums but if youll excuse..
THAT WAS THE SHIT&#33;

titey
08-17-2003, 08:43 AM
@ balamm- :P To further demonstrate how out of touch I am with today&#39;s pot smokers.... I&#39;ve never heard the terms "thai stick" or "pin joint" (though I can guess at the latter).

Congratulations&#33; I now feel really old.... I just had the notion to pine for the "good ol&#39; days". http://www.ml20.nowinbeta.org/smilies/wheelchair.gif


@ addict - There was an "incident" <_< involving my old UN so I had to start over with the new one.

So far as the duct tape and closet.... don&#39;t give Metro any ideas. http://www.ml20.nowinbeta.org/smilies/shutup.gif

imnotanaddict
08-17-2003, 08:55 AM
thai stick -is thai weed wrapped around a thin wood dowelpin dipped in opium.
Have&#39;nt seen one of those since the 70&#39;s either.

titey
08-17-2003, 09:03 AM
You must have a few years on me then addy.... I didn&#39;t smoke my first joint till.... well maybe it was in the late &#39;70s.... but my experience was pretty casual.

The only terms I can remember using back then were joint, doobie, stick and roach.



btw - Surely the expression "Wacky Tabacky" comes from Kentucky&#33; :P

imnotanaddict
08-17-2003, 09:11 AM
auctually that may have been elmer fudd, not sure.
yeah todays slang in these parts are hog legs (for the big ones)
pinners or match sticks (for LIttle)
of course the younger kids are smoking blunts (pretty big doobies rolled in cigar
paper)

titey
08-17-2003, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by imnotanaddict@17 August 2003 - 04:11
yeah todays slang in these parts are hog legs (for the big ones)
Almost certainly it would be HAWG Legs. :P

evilbagpuss
08-17-2003, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by balamm+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (balamm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So suffering cardiac arrest and dying as a result of the use of marijuana is not actually considered harmfull. [/b]


And this case of death by marijuana will be in the Canadian drug death statistics then?

<!--QuoteBegin-balamm
the drugs grown locally are so potent that one gram would be equivalent to several ounces of the very best to ever come out of Columbia.
[/quote]

lolol&#33;&#33; Yeah right&#33; Is it April 1st today?

Cannabis killing people but it doesnt show up on Gvt statistics in any country anywhere in the world?

1 gram of weed being as powerful as several ounces?

And the Canadian media cant be arsed to report anything about it?

Do you have any evidence to support these wild fanciful claims? Return the favour balamm. I went to the trouble of giving you facts as you requested so be a Gent and extend the same courtesy to us please.

I hate to be crude but until you provide some proof I reckon this is the biggest most preposterous piece of rubbish I&#39;ve ever had the misfortune to come across online.

J'Pol
08-17-2003, 09:16 AM
Personal use quantities of cannabis has effectively been de-criminalised in the UK.

We just haven&#39;t told anyone.

titey
08-17-2003, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by JPaul@17 August 2003 - 04:16
Personal use quantities of cannabis has effectively been de-criminalised in the UK.

We just haven&#39;t told anyone.
hadn&#39;t

imnotanaddict
08-17-2003, 09:27 AM
QUOTE (imnotanaddict @ 17 August 2003 - 04:11)
yeah todays slang in these parts are hog legs (for the big ones)&nbsp;


Almost certainly it would be HAWG Legs.

Did I mention I may be slightly out of touch. They may be callin em rack of lamb by now rolled with one of those papers like what came in that "Cheech & Chong"
album years ago, remember that?

J'Pol
08-17-2003, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by titey+17 August 2003 - 10:19--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (titey @ 17 August 2003 - 10:19)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@17 August 2003 - 04:16
Personal use quantities of cannabis has effectively been de-criminalised in the UK.

We just haven&#39;t told anyone.
hadn&#39;t [/b][/quote]
It was accurate when typed.

It didn&#39;t become hadn&#39;t until someone read it.

:P :P :P

imnotanaddict
08-17-2003, 09:32 AM
QUOTE (balamm)
So suffering cardiac arrest and dying as a result of the use of marijuana is not actually considered harmfull.




And this case of death by marijuana will be in the Canadian drug death statistics then?


QUOTE (balamm)
the drugs grown locally are so potent that one gram would be equivalent to several ounces of the very best to ever come out of Columbia.




lolol&#33;&#33; Yeah right&#33; Is it April 1st today?

Cannabis killing people but it doesnt show up on Gvt statistics in any country anywhere in the world?

1 gram of weed being as powerful as several ounces?

And the Canadian media cant be arsed to report anything about it?

Do you have any evidence to support these wild fanciful claims? Return the favour balamm. I went to the trouble of giving you facts as you requested so be a Gent and extend the same courtesy to us please.

I hate to be crude but until you provide some proof I reckon this is the biggest most preposterous piece of rubbish I&#39;ve ever had the misfortune to come across online.



dude you got me rolling on that one, funny shit

titey
08-17-2003, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by imnotanaddict+17 August 2003 - 04:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (imnotanaddict &#064; 17 August 2003 - 04:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Did I mention I may be slightly out of touch. They may be callin em rack of lamb by now rolled with one of those papers like what came in that "Cheech & Chong" album years ago, remember that? [/b]
My use of the word "hawg" was in deference to the "Kentucky Drawl"... I have no idea whether the kids are into smoking mutton these days. :rolleyes:



<!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@17 August 2003 - 04:31
It didn&#39;t become hadn&#39;t until someone read it.
[/quote]
Thank you for reinforcing my point. :P

Biggles
08-17-2003, 10:10 AM
Although I participated extensvely in consuming the products of Lebanon (it was still a nice place back then) and Morocco in my teenage years I can&#39;t say I have sufferred any ill effects to date.

As I tended to sit listening to Pink Floyd and enjoying a combination of Galaxy and Frys Mint Cream (worth trying by the way) the alchohol scene passed me by. Now in my dotage (well mid 40s) I have turned into a Government accountant. Strangely, most of my erstwhile counter culture revolutionaries are in equally stable employment; although we are all still little rebels underneath (we like to think).

I know of no casaulties from that period. Although at least two of my school friends have died from alcoholism and a couple more are in a bad way because of alchohol. Despite all of us consuming a fair amount of dope back then I think only one or two of my buddies still take an occassional joint, the rest of us have all given up smoking, and rarely drink. I last got stoned back in 1987 at the Pink Floyd Delicate sound of Thunder tour for old times sake (great night it was too :rolleyes: ). I prefer a walk in the hills these days to get me high. Scary I know - but it could happen to you&#33;

The biggest disaster I can recall was thinking that dark brown and lime green was a pretty colour combination when painting our kitchen. The following morning all I heard was "Oh Fuck" as one of my flat mates went into the kitchen. It was so awful it was almost good.

Balaam&#39;s argument seems to revolve around some strange high tech post apocolyptic future world. All I can say is thankfully we Europeans are just saying NO&#33; to N. America&#39;s fascination with GM. The difficulty is Balaam and Bagpus are not comparing like with like. A gentle puff on some Red Leb seems to have no equivilant to the ghastly fetid stuff grown in the sewers of BC. Is it even still technically cannabis? I know I don&#39;t count some of the GM products as still being what they claim it to be and leave them where they belong - on the supermarket shelves.

Eat and smoke natural and you will be ok - there must still be some of the 60s and 70s in me :D

J'Pol
08-17-2003, 10:26 AM
Don&#39;t smoke at all.

If you have to smoke use a glass or some such, don&#39;t mix it with tobacco.

Better still eat. Last longer and has more of an effect, just takes a bit longer to get there.

Or so I was told.

clocker
08-17-2003, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by balamm@17 August 2003 - 02:33



And people have become tolerant to this new stuff. I know some that go through several ounces a week.

Several ounces a week?

And this stuff is exponentially more potent than Thai sticks?

Decades of practice lead me to doubt the veracity of at least one of these claims.

fugley
08-17-2003, 10:52 AM
Legalise the lot&#33; Lets make the stuff available at it&#39;s true cost which is probably next to bugger all&#33;

Grow it here - take the power away from the drug lords in Columbia, Afganistan etc. Put dem scum yardies and gangs out of business&#33;

Probably cut the burglary and other drug related crime rate to a fraction of current levels. The current battle is a lost one - time to change tactics.

Go get your fix from a legitimate retail outlet. It will probably be cleaner slightly safer shit than that which is on the streets.

:blink:

imnotanaddict
08-17-2003, 10:52 AM
edited

balamm
08-18-2003, 04:28 AM
Originally posted by http://www.instant-essays.com/alcohol_&_drugs/marijuana.shtml+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (http://www.instant-essays.com/alcohol_&_drugs/marijuana.shtml)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>THC in the mother&#39;s milk is much more concentrated than that in the mother&#39;s blood. One study has shown that the use of marijuana by a mother during the first month of breast feeding can impair the infant&#39;s motor development (control of muscle movement). INTERACTIONS: Interactions can be expected between cannabis and a wide range of drugs. Nortriptyline is a tricyclics (a chemical with three fused rings in the molecular structure) antidepressant. Cannabis interacts adversely with tricyclics antidepressants. Cannabis, on its own, produces tachycardia (rapid heart action) as a side-effect. Tricyclics do the same.

Combined, there is an additive effect, with a larger increase in heart rate.

Tricyclic antidepressants have a certain effect on the heart. This effect can be described as cardiotoxicity (having a toxic effect on the heart). In normal dosage, in individuals with no heart disorders, this causes no problems at all.

In over doseage, tricyclics can produce serious cardiac arrest. (The effects of cannabis and Nortriptyline in particular have been documented.) 1.)
[/b]


Originally posted by http://mentor.fork.de/content.php?pid=309+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (http://mentor.fork.de/content.php?pid=309)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The use of cannabis has been associated with the development of schizophrenia and depression (7). The studies that back up these findings have not yet established whether the use of cannabis triggers the onset of schizophrenia or depression or whether it causes these conditions in non-predisposed people. Chronic daily users have reported higher levels of anxiety, fatigue and low motivation, and this seems especially applicable to teenage girls (8). Cannabis also has a higher percentage of tar than cigarette smoke and therefore increases the risk of lung damage.

[/b]



Originally posted by http://www.vh.org/adult/provider/psychiatry/CPS/30.html
The diagnosis of cannabis toxicity is defined operationally in the DSM-IV. The criteria for cannabis intoxication are as follows:

A. Recent use of cannabis
B. Clinically significant maladaptive behavioral or psychological changes (e.g., impaired motor coordination, euphoria, anxiety, sensation of slowed time, impaired judgment, social withdrawal) that developed during, or shortly after cannabis use.

C. Two or more of the following psychological symptoms within 2 hours of use:

1. conjunctival injection
2. increased appetite

3. dry mouth

4. tachycardia

D. The symptoms are not due to a general medical condition and are not better accounted for by another mental disorder.

Associated with the diagnosis cannabis intoxication are additional descriptors and/or specifiers that include cannabis intoxication delirium, cannabis-induced psychotic disorder with delusions, cannabis-induced psychotic disorder with hallucinations, cannabis-induced psychotic disorder with delusions, cannabis-induced anxiety disorder, and cannabis related disorder not otherwise specified. Cannabis-induced delusional disorders are rare in the United States, but are reported frequently in countries such as India and Egypt where high dose cannabis preparations are used extensively. Occasionally, the delusional disorder may not resolve within a few hours and the subject requires psychiatric hospitalization. A diagnostic problem then arises when trying to determine whether a psychotic individual abused marijuana, or whether the abuse of cannabis directly caused the psychosis. By evaluating the patient&#39;s premorbid and post-morbid state, one can attempt to solve this problem by determining the course of the disorder (Johnston et al 1980).

The diagnosis of cannabis dependence is defined operationally in the DSM-IV. The DSM-IV criteria for the diagnosis of cannabis dependence are as follows (DSM-IV 1994):

A. Cannabis abuse: A destructive pattern of cannabis use, leading to significant social, occupational, or medical impairment.
B. Must have three (or more) of the following, occurring when the cannabis use was at its worst:

1. Cannabis tolerance: Either need for markedly increased amounts of cannabis to achieve intoxication, or markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of cannabis.
2. Greater use of cannabis than intended: Cannabis was often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended

3. Unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control cannabis use: Persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control cannabis use

4. Great deal of time spent in using cannabis, or recovering from hangovers

5. Cannabis caused reduction in social, occupational or recreational activities: Important social, occupational, or recreational activities given up or reduced because of cannabis use.

6. Continued using cannabis despite knowing it caused significant problems: Continued cannabis use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been worsened by cannabis

C. Associated features:

1. Learning Problem
2. Psychotic

3. Euphoric Mood

4. Depressed Mood

5. Somatic or Sexual Dysfunction

6. Addiction

7. Odd or Eccentric or Suspicious Personality



Originally posted by http://www.sjs.sd83.bc.ca/career/drugs.htm#cannabis
Cannabis
Cannabis (Marijuana) is a combination of the dried leaves and flowers of the hemp plant. Usually it is rolled into a cigarette paper and smoked, although it is sometimes eaten. Marijuana contains THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), the main active chemical which has the mind-altering effect on the brain.

The effects of marijuana differ with each person and the circumstances of its use. Some people feel giddy and some feel nothing at all. Time may appear to move slowly or ordinary events can seem very interesting or funny. Marijuana can raise your blood pressure and double your normal heart rate. After "smoking up" your eyes will look red from the blood vesses expanding. Commonly, users will feel very thirsty and/or hungry. Co-ordination ad reaction time will be impaired, as well as the ability to think and reason effectively.

People who support the legalization of marijuana claim that there are no health risks involved. The truth is that long-term users show the same changes in their brain as do abusers of other drugs&#33; Smoking marijuana can cause cancer and lung diseases much the same as tobacco. The side effects of using marijuana can be particularily destructive to adolescents because short-term memory is affected. The ability to study or learn is also severly retarded and it takes away motivation so that someone who smokes up regularily may find they no longer care about other things that used to be imortnat to them. Frequent users may find that they feel "dopey" and unalble to think clearly when problem solving or performing complex tasks even after the intoxicating effects of the drug have worn off.



Originally posted by http://boards.marihemp.com/boards/archive.shtml?2x1799
Smoking marijuana has also been found to increase fivefold the risk of a heart
attack in the first hour after
inhalation.



Originally posted by http://www.valpo.edu/home/faculty/jnelson/AbnormalWebPage/Notes/SubAbOL.html
Negative Effects of Marijuana

Physical effects
increase in the heart rate
bloodshot eyes
dry mouth and throat
increased appetite
Reduced coordination
Pulmonary system damage and lung cancer
Psychological effects
impair short-term memory,
Impaired learning and comprehension
Reduced concentration
Reduced motivation
paranoia and psychosis
Psychological dependence and tolerance



Originally posted by http://www.hemp.net/news/9801/980130us.html
Dronabinol-induced parasympatholytic-like activity may result in tachycardia or conjunctivitis. Effects on blood pressure are inconsistent, and some patients have experienced orthostatic hypotension or syncope.



Originally posted by http://www.pdxnorml.org/PR_Hollister_Health_Aspects_1986.html
I. Cardiovascular Problems

Tachycardia, orthostatic hypotension, and increased blood concentrations of carboxyhemoglobin from cannabis smoking would undoubtedly have deleterious effects on persons with heart disease due to arteriosclerosis of the coronary arteries or congestive heart failure. Although a slight trend toward increased use by persons over age 30 years has been detected in recent epidemiological studies, it is unlikely that many persons with serious heart disease will be exposed to this hazard from cannabis use.

Tachycardia is a consequence of almost every acute dose of cannabis, although some degree of tolerance develops to this effect. Evidence suggests that it is mainly due to an inhibition of vagal tone [32]. Increasing the heart rate and thereby cardiac work might be harmful to patients with angina pectoris or congestive heart failure. A direct test of the effects of marijuana smoking in exercise-induced angina proved this harmful effect of the drug. Smoking one cigarette containing 19 mg of THC decreased the exercise time until angina by 48%. Smoking a marijuana placebo cigarette decreased the exercise time until angina by only 9%. thus, smoking marijuana increased myocardial oxygen demand and decreased myocardial oxygen delivery [9]. A subsequent study compared the effect of this type of marijuana cigarette with that of a high nicotine cigarette. the marijuana cigarette decreased the exercise time by 50%; the nicotine cigarette decreased the exercise time to angina by 23% [10]. Clearly, smoking of any kind is bad for patients with angina, but the greater effect of cannabis in increasing heart rate makes this drug especially bad for such patients. Fortunately, few angina patients are devotees of cannabis.

A rapid heart rate might be expected to aggravate congestive heart failure. Actually, little is known about the direct effects of THC on myocardium. A single study using an isolated rat heart reported a negative inotropic effect from THC, i.e., weaker contractibility of muscle [115]. If so, the use of cannabis by patients in congestive heart failure could make matters even worse.

Premature ventricular contractions have been reported following marijuana smoking [91]. However, when subjects were continually monitored electrocardiographically while smoking cigarettes containing approximately 20 mg of THC, no increase in such premature beats was found [145]. Ventricular premature beats are rarely observed and do not seem to be of any great clinical importance.




Originally posted by http://www.whitman.edu/biology/Stuproj/YoungB/physio.html#heart
Effects of Marijuana Smoking on the Heart

The primary effect of marijuana smoking on the heart is tachycardia (a brisk increase in rate), which can be accompanied by an increase in blood pressure. The stroke volume of a normal heart remains the same throughout exposure, so the net effect on the heart is an increase of work performed. These effects are similar to those induced by stress and are not deleterious to the workings of a normal, healthy heart.
People with ailments affecting the circulatory system, such as arteriosclerosis or propensity to heart failure, may have some complications when smoking marijuana. These difficulties would be similar to those induced by stress, which can vary in severity. More studies need to be done to assess the risks for people with heart and circulatory difficulties, but one very promising fact is that nowhere in medical history has anyone died from marijuana-induced heart failure.(citation)



Originally posted by http://my.marijuana.com/print.php?sid=6650
Why such a demand? The high is a lot higher. Woodstock-era marijuana had a THC content, or potency, of 2 percent. The current crop coming in from Mexico runs an average of 6 percent. B.C. Bud&#39;s THC content can rise to 25 percent.

*This is no doubt outdated and refers to average street grade.

<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.marijuananews.com/marijuananews/cowan/remarkably_intelligent_article_i.htm@


Remarkably Intelligent Article In The Toronto Star
Looks Beyond Prohibitionist Propaganda About Marijuana Potency

From the Toronto Star
[email protected]

http://www.thestar.com/

June 27, 1998
By Thomas Walkom
B.C. STRIKES GOLD WITH POTENT CROPS

BRITISH Columbia marijuana is prized through-out the world because of its potency.
See A Very Interesting Article In The Toronto Sun Looks Calmly At The Huge Canadian Marijuana Business
and
Edmonton Superweed Reefer Madness Embarrasses Justice Minister;
Local Paper Opposes Even Medical Marijuana

Run-of-the-mill marijuana contains only 2 to 3 per cent tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the active mood-altering ingredient.

B.C. pot is stronger. Some hauls seized by the RCMP have contained as much as 15 per cent THC. Two years ago, marijuana from Surrey, B.C., won an intemational pot award, according to RCMP Constable Vince Arsenault.


[/quote] *This is sooooo old

<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.vanmag.com/0004/indoors.html
The move indoors has also led to better quality control for marijuana growers - which means dramatically increased firepower in the war against brain cells. The skanky ditchweed joints all those hippies thought they were getting "high" on in the &#39;60s were flatliners compared to the 15-percent THC mind bombs that pot connoisseurs light up today.

[/quote]* this is still three years old.


Bottom line is that most growers won&#39;t talk about the newest varieties or where they came from. Most of us know that UBC and pharmaceutical research played a part in it though.

As for the cardiac problems, if you haven&#39;t got the picture now, I doubt you ever will. I&#39;ve had the paddles once, yes in effect brought back ;) . I&#39;ve had my heart stopped for a moment and then restarted(which is like being rolled up like a tube of toothpaste from your toes up)due to not responding to normal treatments. And been treated with other extreme drugs to restore and regulate rythym.

If you still insist none of this is real, I sugest you carry on smoking. You&#39;re not funtioning correctly anyway.

evilbagpuss
08-18-2003, 06:04 AM
OK... lets deal with those "facts" you supplied. The first one says that cannabis can interact with anti-depressants and raise your heart level. Wow.

You missed out some important parts of the 2nd source.


Originally posted by http://mentor.fork.de/content.php?pid=309
Cannabis is the most popular illicit drug in the world and is usually smoked on its own or with tobacco. It has been associated with both harm and medical value. Due to the lack of long term research on the impact of regular, long term use it is difficult to assess the true impact of its use. As marijuana is not an approved medicine, there is little information about the consequences of its medical use in modern society (6). Some research has indicated its potential to address certain medical conditions such as multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, arthritis, AIDS-related conditions, cancers and pain control.

The use of cannabis has been associated with the development of schizophrenia and depression (7). The studies that back up these findings have not yet established whether the use of cannabis triggers the onset of schizophrenia or depression or whether it causes these conditions in non-predisposed people. Chronic daily users have reported higher levels of anxiety, fatigue and low motivation, and this seems especially applicable to teenage girls (8). Cannabis also has a higher percentage of tar than cigarette smoke and therefore increases the risk of lung damage.


Sneaky&#33;&#33; Taking out all the bits which you dont like&#33;&#33; The rest is hardly ground breaking stuff. You can freak out and cannabis contains more tar. Wow.

DSM-IV just describes the effects of cannabis and puts far too much emphasis on what happens when you take huge amounts.

The next one.. Marijuana raises your heat rate and blood pressure.. wow.. so does alcohol&#33; You will notice they refrain from going as far as you have in saying people can die from it?

LOL The next quote you gave from http://boards.marihemp.com/boards/archive.shtml?2x1799 is based on an experiment with squirrel monkeys&#33;&#33; But again you dont mention that do you? Talk about deception...

The next one is the usual effects of having too much. Again... no-ones dying here. I could also point out that the effects of too much alcohol are far worse.

The next quote talks about Dronabinol which is "chemically synthesized THC" but again you dont want us to know that do you?

The next one says that people with heart disease shouldnt smoke cannabis. wow.. Isnt it true that people with heart disease shouldnt smoke.. period???

Again the next quote deals with
"People with ailments affecting the circulatory system, such as arteriosclerosis" but concludes that "one very promising fact is that nowhere in medical history has anyone died from marijuana-induced heart failure.(citation)"

thanks at last you admit it :)

As for the 25% scare story I suggest you read that article and pay more attention. For example...


KN newspapers are slobberingly reefer mad without professional help.

This is a nasty prohibitionist piece that many ill-informed (read:TV-watching, non-reading") Americans will read a gasp in horror. And thats the whole job of propaganda like this.

This is going to get worse and worse as the Bush Administration and Walters the Wondergeek escalate their "Project Marijuana" plan to rid the universe of this popular and useful plant.

Please resist the urge to smack the dayights out of people you hear repeating this trash: They are victims too"

hehe, Ill resist the urge then ;)

I&#39;ve never seen such a disingenious piece of rubbish in my life.

Basically no ones died from it. EVER

And that claim of 1 gram = several ounces is rubbish. The article that claims its 25% is from a tabloid that didnt provide any references. They say woodstock era potency is 2% but no one ever tested that or proved that&#33; As the author of the site where the article is hosted says
There is NO DATA on marijuana potency from tyhe 1960s. LAst time I looked it up, Woodstock was in the 1960&#39;s. Also, stabs at Woodstock more proof this is also a culture war

You havent proved any of your crazy claims. You&#39;ve taken the bits of info you want, removed all the inconvenient parts and then put them forward as the gospel truth.

i.e propaganda

You can push these silly lies all you want but the millions of hash smokers all round the world are proving you wrong every day.

balamm
08-18-2003, 06:22 AM
As I said...


If you still insist none of this is real, I sugest you carry on smoking. You&#39;re not funtioning correctly anyway.

All refferences were given, You just chose to use the bits you wanted&#33;

If tachycardia is not life threatening, if no one has ever died from it, then all the fuss of treating it can be dispensed with.
And I would have been just another statistic that you refuse to believe.

The links between tachycardia and marijuana are well documented. The same is Not true of alcohol.

Although I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll draw up some other parallel to minimise the deadly effects of your "recreational" drug, the fact that other vices cause other, different complications does not diminish the facts.

evilbagpuss
08-18-2003, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by balamm
All refferences were given, You just chose to use the bits you wanted&#33;


lol. What a lie. I had to include the bits you left out, sometimes in the middle of a sentence, because it didnt fit it with your propaganda.

Look no ones died from it. You cant show me one statistic saying marijuana has killed anyone. Hell even your own sources say no one has died from it. Just give it a rest balamm your fighting a losing battle.

As for the tachycardia argument.. yet again your twisting it round. Look at this..

http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/plant...nt/cannabis.htm (http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/plant/cannabis.htm)


Tachycardia will rarely exceed 140 or 150/min, but patients
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; with previous cardiovascular impairment may be at risk of
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; acute cardiac failure

This is exactly what all your other propaganda said. People who have heart problems are not likely to start smoking cannabis are they???

Basically a normal healthy person can smoke dope without worrying about any of this rubbish. You know it, I know it, millions of smokers round the world know it. It doesnt matter how you twist the facts around as even your own sources prove you wrong.

Like I said before balamm.. your fighting a losing battle because truth and fact are not on your side.

evilbagpuss
08-18-2003, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by balamm
The links between tachycardia and marijuana are well documented. The same is Not true of alcohol.


More lies.

http://www.injuryboard.com/view.cfm/Topic=308


In some patients, tachycardia occurs as a side effect of certain medications. Some of these medications include, but are not limited to, epinephrine, ephedrine, aminophylline, atropine, and digoxin. Other times, tachycardia occurs with the use of coffee, tea, alcohol, chocolate, or cigarettes.


http://www.medhelp.org/forums/cardio/messa...ges/30613a.html (http://www.medhelp.org/forums/cardio/messages/30613a.html)


Hello,

I am 24 years old and I am not a heavy drinker and only drink maybe once every couple of months. Twice in the past year I have had six or seven drinks in a night (enough to be rather intoxicated) and have woken up around 5am to find my heart pounding and racing. There are no other symptoms other than the pounding and racing. Both times I have sat down and waited about 5-10 minutes and it went back to its normal rate (rather abruptly - it didn&#39;t slow down but all of a sudden kicked back into a normal rate). I am also prone to palpitations. I get them probably several times a day but I have been to a cardiologist twice and each time have had a stress test, 24 hour holter, an EKG and an ECG done. All tests came back normal and the palpitations were identified as "binine extra beats."

I am alright with the palpitations and have learned to live with them and have somewhat convinced myself that they are not going to hurt me. I am, however, a little worried about the rapid heart rate. Is the rapid heart rate potentially life threatening? Would you consider it dangerous for me to go out drinking once in a while considering that I may wake up with a rapid heart rate?

Thanks,

Angela

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer Posted By: CCF CARDIO MD JMF on Monday, September 20, 1999

Dear Angela,

I would recommend abstaining from alcohol if at all possible or having it in moderation. These are effects of alcohol on heart muscle and with long term use, alcohol can cause arrhythmias that do not resolve and a decrease in heart function.

balamm
08-18-2003, 07:38 AM
Tachycardia is not even a concern at that level. A course of beta blockers would deal with that.

Let&#39;s get real if you can focus for a moment.

A heart rate of 200-220+ beats per minute sustained over a period of four hours is very likely to end in cardiac arrest and likely death. A shorter period of time can cause permanent heart damage.
Tachycardia is seldom related to existing disease processes. It&#39;s a triggered response.
One of the triggers is adrenaline, A byproduct of fear, panic or extreme excitement. Another cause would be something that interferes with the natural transmision of electrical impulses to the heart.
What causes an undue release of adrenaline in an otherwise healthy individual?
What normal daily routine could cause that level of fear, panic, or extreme excitement in the absense of any threat? What natural event would so disrupt the electrochemical processes that control the heart, in the absense of any other physical cause?
Aside from some sort of psychosis or physical trauma, nothing. Nothing but the intake of your harmless recreational drug or some other equally disruptive substance.
Im sure if someone OD&#39;d on heroin or suffered such a life threatening physical reaction, someone would drop them in front of a hospital or call an ambulance. That is not the case when someone claims to be OD&#39;ing from marijuana.
The propaganda you and those like you spread has made it unlikely that someone suffering anything less than vomiting blood would be taken serious when they complain after smoking a joint.
"Paranoia" or "freaking out" you&#39;d call it.
"Just chill" or "walk it off".

Sound familiar? It does to me. I had to call my own ambulance on more than one occasion before I realised that the lies you&#39;re spreading would be the end of me.
How many people go through something like that?
Probably more than would ever admit it.

Smoking dope causes paranoia. Any argument there?
Do paranoid people who&#39;ve just smoked an illegal substance head straight off
to get medical assistance when they need it? Can they even comprehend that they need it?
Isn&#39;t it more likely to be treated with a brown paper bag and quietly forgotten?

There lies the problem with your statistics.

evilbagpuss
08-18-2003, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by balamm+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (balamm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>A heart rate of 200-220+ beats per minute sustained over a period of four hours is very likely to end in cardiac arrest and likely death.[/b]


Originally posted by http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/plant/cannabis.htm+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/plant/cannabis.htm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Tachycardia will rarely exceed 140 or 150/min, but patients
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; with previous cardiovascular impairment may be at risk of
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; acute cardiac failure[/b]

<_<


Originally posted by http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/plant/cannabis.htm
Tolerance develops to
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; emotional changes, tachycardia, body temperature and

&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; psychomotor tasks; tolerance of the cardiac effects may
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; develop in just a few days.

:D


<!--QuoteBegin-balamm@
What causes an undue release of adrenaline in an otherwise healthy individual?
What normal daily routine could cause that level of fear, panic, or extreme excitement in the absense of any threat? What natural event would so disrupt the electrochemical processes that control the heart, in the absense of any other physical cause?
[/quote]

How about people like you spreading paraoid propaganda? Perhaps massive doses of cannabis as a first time use because its not legal, not regulated and no one knows what 1 dose should be? You also fail to mention that tachycardia can be caused by many other things. Stress at work, pregnancy, anxiety, alcohol, nicotine etc

Face facts. If what you were saying is true people would be dropping like flies. Its simply not happening.

<!--QuoteBegin-balamm
Isn&#39;t it more likely to be treated with a brown paper bag and quietly forgotten?

There lies the problem with your statistics[/quote]

Forgotten? Not if the person dies as you claim.

If people were dying from tachycardia brought on by cannabis Im sure the Gvt would love to put it in the drug death statistics. They&#39;re hardly likely to cover it up are they? You seem to be saying that tachycardia leading to death brought on by drugs is simply not included in the statistics. I find that extremely hard to believe.

If what you were saying is true there would be a mass epidemic of unexplained deaths among young people. This isnt happening either.

After 10+ years in the "field" I would have heard of it happening by now and I would certainly not be on here defending cannabis if that were the case.

What about clocker? 40 years &#39;active service&#39; (if memory serves) and even he hasnt heard of this happening.

After reading you carefully pruned sources and hysterics I sense some sort of hidden agenda here. Whatever the case your propaganda does not fit in with the personal experience of millions of smokers worldwide, current medical knowledge or Gvt statistics.

How come your not campaigning as vigorously about alcohol related deaths? They&#39;re in the thousands (not including long term usage deaths) and they&#39;re not a figment of anyones imagination, yet you remain quite silent on that issue.

Just for the record I have freaked out after far too much marijuana and it is nothing like you describe. (220 bpm over 4 hours&#33; :lol: )

balamm
08-18-2003, 08:13 AM
I gave up on trying to reform chronic alcoholics with their never ending excuses and twisted logic.




As I now give up on you and your addiction. ;)

Just keep it away from my kids and we won&#39;t have any problems.

evilbagpuss
08-18-2003, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by balamm
I gave up on trying to reform chronic alcoholics with their never ending excuses and twisted logic.




As I now give up on you and your addiction.&nbsp;

Just keep it away from my kids and we won&#39;t have any problems.

Just say no eh? :lol: :lol: :lol:

The fact that you can compare alcoholicism (physical addiction) with heavy cannabis usage (psychological addiction) just highlights the fact that you probably know very little about either of them.

Let me help you out. After 10 years of sometimes extremely heavy cannabis use which involved a fair bit of psychological addiction I am now sitting here typing this having not had a joint for about 2 weeks. No shivers, tremors nausea, cravings etc

I am feeling pretty good :)

If I was offered some I may have a hard time resisting the temptation but I am not actively seeking it out or feeling bad because of the lack of it.

Compare that to a real alcoholic in a similar position and I dont think he&#39;d be telling you the same thing.

I personally found your last post offensive to both alcoholics and cannabis smokers alike. You denigrate the formers struggle and demean the latters choice of drug with your ridiculous comparison.

Why dont you keep away from this subject until your opinions match current scientific knowledge and we&#39;ll be OK. In the meantime I will watch out for any of my friends having a heart rate of 3 million bpm due to having a toke off a joint. :lol:

balamm
08-18-2003, 09:27 AM
And I find you .... offensive&#33;

Laugh at tachycardia? You do have some disturbed thought processes.

evilbagpuss
08-18-2003, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by balamm
And I find you .... offensive&#33;

Laugh at tachycardia? You do have some disturbed thought processes.

Im not laughing at trachycardia. Im laughing at your claims that cannabis produces heart rates in excess of 200bpm even though I&#39;ve already provided evidence to the contrary. 140-150bpm max and tolerance to this effect quickly builds up.

Im also laughing at your insistence that cannabis can cause death via cardiac arrest within a matter of hours which also goes against standard medical knowledge (and the experiences of millions of smokers worldwide).

Even your own sources say you are wrong in this respect. Is that not funny?

clocker
08-18-2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by balamm@18 August 2003 - 01:38


Smoking dope causes paranoia. Any argument there?

Yes.
I&#39;ll concede that smoking dope may lead to excessive replaying of Hotel California and fondness for Haagen Daz, but paranoia?
Not in my experience.

Balamm, I gather that you have had some sort of traumatic experience associated with smoking marijuana.
I&#39;m sorry.
Don&#39;t smoke.
But to extrapolate your experience to include everyone is hardly kosher.

evilbagpuss
08-18-2003, 12:58 PM
@clocker

I can confirm that, in my experience, a small minority of people (~3-5%) reach a corner in their cannabis &#39;career&#39; (3-4 years for me) where, in certain unfamiliar environments, paranoia can kick in.

I have experienced this myself which is why I take regular breaks from it.

The real bone of contention here is whether you could get so worked up about it that your heart rate would stay at 200-220bpm for 4 hours and cause you a cardiac arrest.

I doubt it and none of the scientific literature on this subject , even the strongest anti-cannabis material, supports this claim.

thewizeard
08-18-2003, 01:38 PM
I think that all drugs should be legalised. Sold in the chemist under prescription.. For addicts it should be free. (It would stop a lot of criminality.)

The prohibition proved in the 1920&#39;s, making something illegal just creates a black market for the product.

My children have experimented with cannabis and left the habit behind them as well. They were always able to talk to me about it though and often tried to get me to participate&#33; I don&#39;t believe in the link soft drugs>hard drugs. Some will always become an addict and move onto the &#39;hard&#39; stuff for many different reasons.

Smoking cannabis is very expensive. In the Netherlands it costs about €5 ( on average) for a gram. Work it out in English. 1 ounce is about 26.6 grams. 16 ounces make 1 pound; therefore that&#39;s €2128 for one pound. Can anyone change that into sterling?
The cost of &#39;blowing&#39; can be a real problem for the family if you are a parent who &#39;blows&#39;.

Rat Faced
08-18-2003, 03:57 PM
I believe ALL drugs should be legalized, and taxed.

Not because I use them or agree people should be "Free to choose" etc etc etc

Simply....

FACT 1/

Anyone can get them, in just about any city, at any time very simply.

The millions of &#036; we send on combating drugs by enforcement is mis-spent....as in the long run, it just doesnt work.

FACT 2/

As its illegal, its controlled by Organised Crime/Gangs....there is a large profit margin, and they will kill people that get in their way.

FACT 3/

To increase their profit margins more, they mix any old crap in with the drugs, making them even more toxic.....sometimes lethally so.

FACT 4/

To increase consumption, these bastards tout the stuff around schools etc...creating large numbers of kids addicted to the crap.

FACT 5/

People addicted cause huge amounts of crime, in order to get the money for their next "Fix", largely because of the inflated prices of the Gangs.



5 FACTS, that no one will disagree with.

If legalised, the 1st fact remains....the other 4 are reduced or eliminated entirely, as prices drop, content is safer and no one is touting kids.

The Tax raised from the sales can be ploughed into education and care for those addicted, together with the money currently being wasted fighting the spread of the drugs.


They have been trying to fight Organised Crime re: spread of drugs for years....and the problem just gets worse.

Time for a new approach, by cutting out the Criminal Element, and educating.

imnotanaddict
08-18-2003, 04:59 PM
this is a must read if you have any interest in this topic:
http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/pri.../parsons-e.html (http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V13/2/parsons-e.html)


Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do about It: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs
By Judge James P. Gray. Temple University Press, 272 pages, &#036;19.95

One day about eight years ago, Judge James P. Gray held a press conference on the steps of the Santa Ana courthouse where he served and still serves as a California superior-court trial judge. He spoke out that day against U.S. drug policy, referring to the war on drugs as "our biggest failure" and calling for the legalization of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. Many in his community, from the sheriff ("What was this guy smoking?") to the deputy district attorney ("Did he seem to be in his right mind?") expressed outrage. Some questioned the judge&#39;s integrity, and Gray conceded that his speaking out would probably keep him from being considered for future judicial appointments. But he had seen too much; he felt compelled to take a stand.

And his war on the war on drugs continues: The judge has now issued a "judicial indictment" in Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do about It. Gray, a Republican, allies himself with other conservatives, such as William F. Buckley, Jr., and former Secretary of State George P. Shultz, who have called for a wider debate on America&#39;s antidrug policies. And he quotes letters written by nearly two dozen other judges who he says have "seen firsthand that we [are] wasting unimaginable amounts of our tax dollars, increasing crime and despair, and severely and unnecessarily harming people&#39;s lives by our failed drug polic[ies]."

Those policies, writes Gray, are a "program of massive prisons, demonization of drug users, and prohibition of debate about our options." Making drugs illegal, he argues, amounts to an attempt "to repeal the law of supply and demand," an impossible task. The prohibition raises the price of the goods, and with so much money to be made, peasants abroad grow poppy or coca because it is their most profitable crop; dealers risk their lives to sell drugs for huge profits; and prisons are built to house more criminals.

And prison construction and inmate upkeep turn out to be big business, too. Citing California&#39;s experience, Gray notes that longer sentences and skyrocketing construction rates combine to mean higher costs to the taxpayer. He recalls a startling moment that occurred after one of his lectures.
An accountant in the audience told me that he had penciled out the figures I gave on prison expansion. His arithmetic revealed that if the rate of imprisonment of the past twenty years were to continue, by the year 2020 literally everyone in California would be either in prison or running one. And California ranks only twelfth nationally in prison incarceration rates.

Gray also decries the way that antidrug efforts have led to an erosion of civil liberties and due process over the last 30 years. For example, asset-forfeiture laws allow police to confiscate property or money from criminals in order to obstruct further criminal activity. But in practice, 80 percent of people whose assets are taken by the authorities aren&#39;t charged with a crime. Most of the &#036;590 million seized in California between 1986 and 1993 came from citizens who, according to Gray, were "never intended by Congress to be the subjects of these actions." He tells the story of a couple who lost their home because their grandson was caught on the premises with marijuana and cocaine. A judge told them: "You are probably only guilty of being too tolerant of a criminal grandson." Asset forfeiture also creates a stream of unchecked income for law enforcement. Gray cites alarming cases of "secret bank accounts," cars seized for personal use, and even diverted funds that were used to settle a sexual-harassment suit against police detectives. "The fact remains," writes Gray, "that large amounts of cash inevitably corrupt."

In the second half of the book, Gray takes on the harder question: What to do about it? Moderating his stance from arguments that he&#39;s made in public, Gray does not call explicitly for drug legalization. He notes that a change in the drug laws could have unexpected consequences, including an increase in drug use. But he sees no hope in "zero tolerance" approaches. He argues that "there are numbers of distinct and very workable options to the extremes of zero tolerance on the one hand and drug legalization on the other." And a potential increase in drug use, he says, "would be more than counterbalanced by the enormous benefits we would see in health, crime reduction, tax savings, and international goodwill" if drug policies were liberalized.

Engaging in a wider debate about drug laws, Gray writes, "does not mean that we condone drug use or abuse." He recognizes the need to confront drug abuse as a health problem and a social ill. Rehabilitation programs are an obvious need; Gray also discusses drug maintenance (allowing addicts a monitored drug intake that neither gets them high nor forces them to suffer withdrawal) and controlled distribution (in which government-regulated drugs are sold like a bottle of bourbon). And he maintains that any U.S. drug policy needs to include "a major educational component."

What would a government-regulated market for marijuana, cocaine, and heroin look like? Judge Gray suggests that generically packaged drugs could be sold by pharmacists, with a steep tax that would fund rehabilitation programs and drug education. In Holland, where drugs are decriminalized, the use of hard drugs fell significantly between 1979 and 1994, according to Gray. His point is that "it is much easier to control, regulate, and police a legal market than an illegal one.

In the short term, no one knows just which policies will work best. Why not consider getting the federal government out of drug policy and let states make their own laws? "All of our federal agencies are addicted to the funding provided by the War on Drugs, and they do not want to give up that money," Gray says. "I have learned over twenty years of experience that although the War on Drugs makes for good politics, it makes for terrible government. The War on Drugs is about a lot of things, but only rarely is it really about drugs."

With the current war on terrorism, the politics surrounding drug enforcement have become more complicated. Many U.S. officials are arguing to step up the war on both fronts. "Drugs and terrorism go hand in hand," a former Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) official said recently. "Anyone who uses drugs is absolutely funding terrorists, enabling them to carry out horrific crimes against innocent and defenseless human beings." The National Family Partnership held its annual antidrug event in October with the theme "Saying NO to drugs is saying NO to terrorism."

But if one accepts the economic argument of Gray and others that the best way to destroy the drug rackets is to remove the huge profit incentives, the link between the two wars doesn&#39;t hold. Also, legitimate questions can be raised about the cost of maintaining both efforts. The federal government spends &#036;19.2 billion a year fighting drugs. It shouldn&#39;t be a hard sell that some of that money might be better spent fighting terrorist networks directly. Certainly, Gray is right in suggesting it could be better spent in drug rehabilitation programs than in the never-ending drive for interdiction.

This fall, the Justice Department instructed the DEA to investigate physicians practicing euthanasia in Oregon and clinics that provide marijuana to AIDS and cancer patients in California; both practices were approved in state ballots. Abandoning what Gray calls the "one-size-fits-all approach" to drug policy would mean allowing drug laws to vary from state to state. "It is clear after all these many years that our federal government does not have the right answers," writes Gray. "It is time for other, more local governments to retake command."

j2k4
08-19-2003, 04:17 AM
After all the "information" that has been offered here, I feel compelled to throw out a few of my own thoughts:

Marijuana is not the dangerous "gateway" drug some make it out to be.

As a practical matter, the legalization of same would result in a product of reasonably uniform quality (without the current wild-and, to be honest, somewhat dangerous-variances in potency) that could be taxed to death, thus making it a favorite of the politicians, who could build yet another bureaucracy (their favorite activity) to administer it&#39;s distribution.

It would also allay some long-standing problems with our neighbors to the immediate south, although the domestic effect there would probably make for some real interesting and unique maneuvering, diplomatically (we&#39;d probably have to subsidize Mexican farmers, somehow).

However:

When you progress to drugs such as cocaine and heroin, etc., the societal effects are a bit too risky, I think.

Besides, how much money does the government really need?

We&#39;ve already blown it with alcohol; pot is, as has been postulated here, arguably less physically and societally destructive.

So-why not, right?

Another caution, here-

Those who say, "Well, it works in Sweden...", or "the Netherlands has no problem..." ?

Stuff it-

The U.S. is not Sweden, the Netherlands, or Denmark, and regardless of what one thinks of the success (or lack thereof) of these "social experiments", they do not transfer so easily to American culture.

Humans are free to make/adopt self-destructive choices; we are not, however, free to make them work.

Besides, if you don&#39;t live here, you have neither the right nor the requisite knowledge to opine.

Canada seems to be the next target for the drug-legalization effort; I&#39;ll be watching closely.

Barbarossa
08-19-2003, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@19 August 2003 - 04:17
Besides, if you don&#39;t live here, you have neither the right nor the requisite knowledge to opine.

What an absurd thing to say&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol:

Rat Faced
08-19-2003, 04:12 PM
Besides, if you don&#39;t live here, you have neither the right nor the requisite knowledge to opine.

The original question did not specify a country.

Granted the poster was commenting in his post Re: US policy, the answer i gave is exactly the same opinion i have about UK policy.


As said many times, I dont give a rats ass re: US policy.....except where it effects/concerns me and mine.

However, even if we limit the discussion to US policy....Drugs policy in the US WILL effect every country in the world; we all therefore, are still entitled to give our opinion on the subject matter.

MagicNakor
08-19-2003, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@19 August 2003 - 05:17
...Canada seems to be the next target for the drug-legalization effort; I&#39;ll be watching closely.
The House of Sober Second Thought endorsed the complete legalization of pot. However, they aren&#39;t jumping to that right away; it&#39;s been (or is in the process of being) decriminalized right now, and Health Canada&#39;s going to be selling its own. There hasn&#39;t been a decision on whether or not it&#39;ll be the super-potent strain produced back in April; it had a THC content of 25%, but was anemic.

:ninja:

J'Pol
08-19-2003, 08:51 PM
Like I said, de-criminalise cannabis, we have already effectively done that in the UK.

However then treat it like alcohol - i.e. it is unacceptable to drive, operate machinery, attend work etc whilst under the influence.

All right thinking elements agree that this is the most sensible policy, as that way the quality etc can be controlled. As stated earlier it would also prevent young people from mixing with the criminal element and being drawn into that world.

Something which has not been mentioned ( I think) is the effect of a lack of cannabis on the streets, to the consumption of other drugs. Particularly by young people who want something to bring them down.

It is I believe inevitably the case that young people will be looking for a recreational drug, whether it be cannabis / alcohol etc. If there is a shortage of cannabis there is a much higher likelihood of them taking something else. Particularly if they know people who supply. It&#39;s just the way things are.

This is particularly a problem when they want something to bring them down, e.g. after taking speed or ecstasy. They use the cannabis to calm them down again. If that is not available it is reasonably common for heroin to be used instead. Before the flames start - this is a fact in the UK, I don&#39;t know about anywhere else. So to limit the availability of cannabis, if anything promotes the use of other drugs.

On the other hand kids are by nature rebellious, so if cannabis is acceptable mightn&#39;t they have to use something else. Just because that&#39;s the way they are. Must do something "wrong" it&#39;s my job.

On the whole the arguments for de-criminalising cannabis far out-weigh those against.

Incidentally have you ever been there when someone "taking a bit of blaw" had a "whitey" it is seriously not a pleasant thing. You would not wish it on anyone.

sArA
08-20-2003, 10:46 AM
My take (or toke? lol) is this.....

Yes some people who smoke are lazy, lax in their responsibilities and apparently stupid....but it makes me wonder if they would be like that anyway...chicken and egg?

The supposed reduction in intelligence is not borne out by the many intelligent and highly qualified people I know who do smoke (My Phd is nearly completed thanks....durr I must be thick after 20 years as a &#39;Pot Head Pixie&#39;)

Drunken violence as mentioned before is more socially damaging than a mild mannered pot smoker.

It IS possible to function when stoned, cook dinner, clean the house etc, etc Its all a matter of priorities. These values do not change or disappear just because someone chills out in the evening.

Having spoken to people who have taken prescription anti depressants...the lack of motivation, slowness, dulled senses and &#39;spaced out&#39; feelings that they engender can be much more intense, disabling and longer lasting than the effects of a spliff (of which its most intense effects usually lasts for no more than about an hour)

Oh and the lack of a hangover in the morning means that I would be pretty sure that work days lost to cannabis smoking are significantly less than those lost due to alcohol abuse.

Gateway drug theories are just scaremongering....previous comments about availability and pushers are more relevant.

@ballam......you are clearly misinformed and paranoid, narrow minded and uptight....I think you could do with a spliff...I don&#39;t recommend the use of alcohol as it is a depressant and could make you worse...oh...and as I said before anti-depressants can be addictive and disorienting....Perhaps a joint would be the safest, least addictive solution to your problems dear..... :P

balamm
08-20-2003, 10:58 AM
It must be nice to able to act so irresponsibly and immaturely.
To disregard anything and everything that might threaten your personal escape.
To be so convinced that your mind has not been altered to the point that your reality is not in fact real.
As I said before , carry on.
It gives the rest of us something to point and laugh at when we feel so inclined.

Have another "spliff". You don&#39;t sound like you have much to lose anyway ;)

sArA
08-20-2003, 11:17 AM
Surely the narrow minded, and emotionally immature bigot has more to be concerned about (being laughed at perhaps?) than an open minded free thinker. Whilst you are entitled to an opinion,

1. You clearly did not read my post properly...as if you had...you would notice that I have plenty to lose if I was unable to function due to drug impairment.

2. There was no disregard for opinion, nor do I &#39;need&#39; to escape any more than anyone who uses alcohol or soap operas. It is a pleasure not a necessity.

3. My mind is altered by many things...caffeine, pollution, advertising media, books, oh...and reasoned argument.....if there is validity to it rather than just self righteous posturing of course.

4. Can you please explain (cos I am a dull witted pot head) what is immature about anything in my post.

5. How are my or other smokers actions any more irresponsible than any other action that temporarily alters consciousness? (back to the alcohol argument yawn)

clocker
08-20-2003, 11:57 AM
For millenia mankind has sought out ways to obliterate/expand/enhance reality.
Fermenting grains (i.e. alcohol ) is one of the oldest examples and traces of cocaine have been detected in Egyptian mummies.
Surely then, from a historical perspective, today&#39;s obsession with &#39;living in the here and now" and "staying sober" is the aberration, not vice-versa.

j2k4
08-20-2003, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by barbarossa+19 August 2003 - 10:40--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (barbarossa @ 19 August 2003 - 10:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@19 August 2003 - 04:17
Besides, if you don't live here, you have neither the right nor the requisite knowledge to opine.

What an absurd thing to say!!! :lol: [/b][/quote]
I apologize to one and all for that unfortunate comment-it belonged elsewhere.

I was in the midst of trying to wedge a post in while all the problems with the board were occurring; it was the result of having read several threads and then momentarily losing focus as to which one I was able to reply to.

Again, apologies. :(

clocker
08-20-2003, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by j2k4+20 August 2003 - 10:09--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 20 August 2003 - 10:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by barbarossa@19 August 2003 - 10:40
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@19 August 2003 - 04:17
Besides, if you don't live here, you have neither the right nor the requisite knowledge to opine.

What an absurd thing to say!!! :lol:
I apologize to one and all for that unfortunate comment-it belonged elsewhere.

I was in the midst of trying to wedge a post in while all the problems with the board were occurring; it was the result of having read several threads and then momentarily losing focus as to which one I was able to reply to.

Again, apologies. :( [/b][/quote]
In other words, j2- you were high.

Hand Balamm this thread on a platter why don't you?

j2k4
08-21-2003, 03:20 AM
I do seem to remember my heart going pitty-pat for a short while. :)

DarkBlizzard
08-21-2003, 03:21 AM
If u live in Canada, sooner or later, all drugs on earth will be legal...odd candians.

echidna
08-21-2003, 05:54 AM
I believe that the terms used in this debate should be regulation and prohibition, as i feel the optimum outcome would be as Rat Faced laid out, one where the junk on the streets was replaced by clean products of known dosages and that the health and social security systems could be reinforced by the taxes levied on these newly regulated products.

The main reason that the US had to abandon the project of alcohol prohibition was the hideous toxicity along with the huge growth it granted the black economy.
People were dying and going blind from drink every day. Despite the regulation of alcohol production and sale it and the other legal &#39;recreational&#39; drug tobacco cause far more death and suffering than the illicit drugs do;

Originally posted by http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/centre/ncrpda/news/media/20030225conf_mr3.htm@25 February 2003
Tobacco, alcohol and illicit drugs are prematurely killing around seven million people worldwide each year, and robbing tens of millions more of a healthy life, according to research presented this week at the National Drug Research Institute international research symposium, Preventing substance use, risky use and harm: What is evidence-based policy?, in Fremantle.
The research into the global burden of disease attributable to alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs found that in 2000, tobacco use was responsible for 4.9 million deaths worldwide, equating to 71 percent of all drug-related deaths. Around 1.8 million deaths were attributable to the use of alcohol (26 percent of all drug-related deaths), and illicit drugs (heroin, cocaine and amphetamines) caused approximately 223,000 deaths (3 percent of all drug-related deaths).
The research estimated that between them, tobacco, alcohol and illicit drugs were responsible for around 8.9 percent of the total global burden of disease worldwide in 2000, accounting for the loss of 129 million DALYs (disability-adjusted life years). This measure of burden of disease combines years of life lost due to premature death with years of living with a disabling condition, thus a DALY is equal to the loss of one healthy year of life.
Tobacco and alcohol accounted for about the same amount of global burden of disease at 59 million DALYs (4.1 percent) and 58 million DALYs (4.0 percent) respectively, both about 5 times as much as the burden attributable to illicit drugs at 11.6 million DALYs (0.8 percent). The large difference between DALYs and mortality is due to the fact that tobacco is related to mortality and morbidity later in life, whereas the consequences of alcohol and illicit drugs occur at younger ages.

regulation is what will stop people ODing on junk of unknown strength alone in the street.
I&#39;ve known LOTS of very heavy drinkers but have never known one to drop, i wish the same were true of those people I&#39;ve known who chose other than alcohol.

if you can&#39;t see that drugs are already pervasive throughout the world then your living in a dream world.
if you can&#39;t appreciate the need to regulate the distribution of recreational drugs then you are in favour of black markets profiting criminals with tax free profits from killing kids in the streets.
if that&#39;s what you want then i question your sanity [or vested interests]

the worlds arms and security industries businesses have a lot of money riding on the continuing criminalisation of drugs, not to mention the armed and police forces whose funding and workload would be diminished.

trying to make a plant illegal is pathetically stupid in the first place more so with alcohol causing so much mayhem

blade1356uk
09-04-2003, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by balamm+16 August 2003 - 23:03--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (balamm @ 16 August 2003 - 23:03)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-SodiumChloride@16 August 2003 - 23:50
If marijuana becomes legal, billions of state and federal funds could be freed up (along with the nonviolent prisoners). Those billions could be diverted to increase fighting cocaine, heroin, and other deadly drugs.


I think the first priority would have to be money for the psyhcriatric care that would be neccesary to deal with increased cases of depression, psychosis, paranoia, etc.

Tell me those things are not related to the excessive use of marijuana and I&#39;ll tell you it&#39;s probably time to quit ;) [/b][/quote]
my son died smoking M & H & as far as I am concerned bomb the Poppy Fields did Bush & Blair say this after the 11th September Murders. Bombing the poppy fields would cost less than billions & the extra revenue could go to treating our kids to get off this evil drug & my son started on M

RGX
09-04-2003, 06:47 PM
I am sorry to hear about your son


I could quite easily walk out of my door, down the road, turn left, down a road, past a school, up an alleyway, into a close, and buy as much cannabis as i could ever have wanted. I could very easily get crack, and cocaine as well, and e&#39;s if i looked hard enough among dealers. Many 15 year olds go there, and spend their hard earned pocket money on skunk.

Personally, i&#39;d rather they would get it legally from a shop, clean with no dodgy additives etc

just my lil opinion, not intended to upset anyone

sArA
09-04-2003, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by RGX@4 September 2003 - 19:47
I am sorry to hear about your son

Personally, i&#39;d rather they would get it legally from a shop, clean with no dodgy additives etc

just my lil opinion, not intended to upset anyone
I agree on all counts.... B)

ilw
09-04-2003, 08:50 PM
It took me ages, but i read each and every post in this topic and it was all very interesting. I would like to contribute a website : http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/marijuana/ i was quite surprised but they seem to come out quite strongly in favour or legalising it, a fair bit of their evidence points to the studies of the netherlands over the last 25 years. As i know very few people can be arsed looking up the links provided and reading through the copious arguments, there was however one interesting point:

Pot smoking does leave more tar in your lungs, not only because of the lack of filters, but also because pot smokers hold their breath and breathe more deeply. Also cannabis may in addition be more likely to cause cancer than nicotine/tobacco, studies show that it causes more cellular damage than tobacco and surpresses the immune response of the cells. However, cannabis seems to oddly produce almost no emphysema (the curent theory is that the lessened immune response is behind this)
My advice is to eat it as JPaul suggested. u get less control of the high, but it lasts longer and is smoother IMO (I just wish that it was easier to make the stuff taste nice, all my attempts have been rank)

the page also covers many of the points bagpuss went over (and i am in total agreement with him on many points. If info isn&#39;t from a peer reviewed study/article then its worth sh*t.) eg safety aspects of cannabis, the gateway drug myth and the addiction thing.
The mental health aspect of cannabis has been studied quite a few times, and there is evidence that it can bring on psychosis, but it is unknown whether it just brings out psychosis in those that are predetermined to it (And would thus most likely have suffered a psychotic attack at some point in their lives anyway). ITs also true that a large number of mentally ill people smoke cannabis, but many claim that it helps with their symptomns rather than causing the symptomns.

My personal opinion is that all drugs should be legalised, but that just like now, safer drugs u just need to be a certain age whereas more dangerous drugs should need a prescription/some method of tighter control. Cannabis I reckon is one of the safest recreational drugs and should IMO fall into exactly the same category and laws as alcohol. (though i reckon u should be able to buy beer at 16 and spirits at 18). Ecstasy is one drug which IMO must be legalised and controlled as the current situation seems to create more problems and danger than it solves .

Just a couple of interesting points., did u know that nutmeg if eaten in large quantities can produce similar effects to weed. apparently used to be called the poor mans cannabis, recommended dosage about a matchboxfull (i dunno how big matchboxes were back when this advice was given) in a glass of water.
Also telecomms engineers are the most likely demographic to have tried weed, (in uk study) the figure of those who said they had tried it was between 90 and 95%. :D

asmithz
09-10-2003, 05:43 AM
Ok i dont smoke weed but the fact that theres a law against it makes me mad. They say it makes a peoson not do anything with his/her life. Not true i have a friend that does it alot and is more active then me. He has his own show (puplic accses) where he puts on a wrestling show. Also they say in makes a peoson dumb. Well his not but if it does who cares beer does the same thing. Also Achol has the same effect but weeds better you dont get sick. and you dont feel the need to drive just sleep. I think that it should be legal but if you comit a crime thats when the punishment gets harsh. Just like they do with achole. Anyone got thoght one this. Please keep it sanatray i dont want this post to get closed.

balamm
09-10-2003, 05:44 AM
Well since it&#39;s already been done to death, why don&#39;t we just merge this with the first one ;)

asmithz
09-10-2003, 05:54 AM
thanks balamm i thoght i was in troble for posting when it wsant there.

Billy_Dean
09-10-2003, 06:50 AM
My advice is to eat it as JPaul suggested. u get less control of the high, but it lasts longer and is smoother IMO (I just wish that it was easier to make the stuff taste nice, all my attempts have been rank)

I make small sponge cakes with the powdered grass in. I then put them in a large bowl and pour on jelly made with fruit juice which soaks into the sponges, you can then top this up with whatever you want, custard, blancmange or whatever, to make a nice trifle. Divide it up so you know the dose, and enjoy.


B)

AussieSheila
09-10-2003, 08:13 AM
:P Hi, I&#39;ve come in late again, haven&#39;t read the posts, cept the last one or two, and the only way to go, is to cook it in butter, then use the butter for cooking. No nasty hard to swallow texture, and oil (as in the butter) releases all the good stuff, so you can even use crap leaf and have a very nice end result. B)

BTW, in some states in Australia, marijuana has been decriminalised. You can carry a small amount and grow a limited number of plants for personal use. :)

ilw
09-10-2003, 08:41 AM
I really think there should be a recipes topic in the tips section :D

chalice
09-10-2003, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by ilw@10 September 2003 - 08:41
I really think there should be a recipes topic in the tips section :D
Ready, steady, hook-ah.

0blivion
09-10-2003, 09:26 AM
To make something clear,
only animal oils will attache to the thc which is the high enducing compound.
thus any animal milk or whatever will do fine.
No plant oils like olive oil or sunflower oil will work so don&#39;t use it.

Al Gore for president.

Ps. don&#39;t eat it just smoke it, you&#39;ll have more control and still be productive.
this is what happens to me if i&#39;ve eaten to much of it: http://www.klboardimages.ath.cx/style_images/1/icon8.gif

chalice
09-10-2003, 09:29 AM
Yep, I ate about a quarter ounce of good Minali hashish on the way home from Holland once. Man, did I regret it. Incapacitated for days, lol.

Going through customs was like Dante&#39;s Inferno.