| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nero64
Joined: 09 May 2011
Posts: 2005
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 10:18 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Thanks EH. Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EH.Question
Joined: 10 May 2010
Posts: 2362
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quite welcome |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WildExpressions
Joined: 17 Sep 2009
Posts: 2709
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nero64 wrote: |
And what are YOU doing , Your making serious outrages claims about other people, without any substantiate or provide sources of proof..
Dont call the kettle black. BTW just a question ,you have been defending
the use of MJ with enormous conviction , everything has a reason.in what people say or do, what is yours? |
If you were actually interested you would do a search for more than the negative effects, many of which you greatly exaggerate.
The addictive nature of the weed for example. Pot is not physically addictive and even a minor search confirms that. The fact is almost any action or material has the ability to be psychologically addictive enough to cause physical symptoms of withdrawal. On a scale of 0 to 100 pot scores 21 on the list while caffeine scores 68. Hardly worth mentioning any addictive aspect at all other than to try an put spin on the argument.
Quoting the strength of weed as some indication of it danger level is simple ignorance at best, manipulative at worst. There is no question pot has gotten stronger over the years but for the most part all that means is that people smoke less. When I was a kid people would commonly blow though 30 grams in a weekend. Today it is a few grams in the same period.
The Amsterdam cafe so-called laws is simply not true just like the belief that pot is legal in Holland, it is not. There was a proposed bill that would have changed the laws to outlaw weed with a higher percentage of thc than 15% but it did not pass. Holland has proposed many laws (almost yearly) as they have a uneasy relationship with some of their neighbors due to their relaxed views on pot. Despite their history with weed, Holland as a country, is no more knowledgeable than anyone else on the topic. There is no question that there will be some changes to their laws in the near future.
As for the bladder cancer link, it is one of the very few legitimate and it appears likely that the initial studies will be confirmed.
on the flip side
In 2009 the Cancer Prevention Research organization released the results of a long term study. Long term pot heads are ~62 percent less likely to develop head and neck cancers than people who did not smoke pot. No one understands how or why. http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/25/us-smoking-pot-idUSTRE57O5DC20090825
Even studies aside, we can not ignore the chemo patients whose lives were saved by the two effects of pot that we don't need a study to verify, it settles the stomach and it makes you hungry. The fact that chemo patients are not all tested to see if it helps them is rather sad. Chemo can be as nasty as anything imaginable.
Obviously weed can be abused and commonly is. There is no reason to exaggerate the issue. It is also obvious that it has some beneficial effects that need to be fully explored.
There are 100's of studies and no clear answers other than one simple fact. People who post messages in threads like this have generally made up their minds before they ever did a whit of research resulting in only researching for the answers they want to see.
Don't get me wrong, the pro pot camp is just as full of crap. Neither side are generally worth listening to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nero64
Joined: 09 May 2011
Posts: 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WildExpressions wrote: |
| Nero64 wrote: |
And what are YOU doing , Your making serious outrages claims about other people, without any substantiate or provide sources of proof..
Dont call the kettle black. BTW just a question ,you have been defending
the use of MJ with enormous conviction , everything has a reason.in what people say or do, what is yours? |
If you were actually interested you would do a search for more than the negative effects, many of which you greatly exaggerate.
The addictive nature of the weed for example. Pot is not physically addictive and even a minor search confirms that. The fact is almost any action or material has the ability to be psychologically addictive enough to cause physical symptoms of withdrawal. On a scale of 0 to 100 pot scores 21 on the list while caffeine scores 68. Hardly worth mentioning any addictive aspect at all other than to try an put spin on the argument.
Quoting the strength of weed as some indication of it danger level is simple ignorance at best, manipulative at worst. There is no question pot has gotten stronger over the years but for the most part all that means is that people smoke less. When I was a kid people would commonly blow though 30 grams in a weekend. Today it is a few grams in the same period.
The Amsterdam cafe so-called laws is simply not true just like the belief that pot is legal in Holland, it is not. There was a proposed bill that would have changed the laws to outlaw weed with a higher percentage of thc than 15% but it did not pass. Holland has proposed many laws (almost yearly) as they have a uneasy relationship with some of their neighbors due to their relaxed views on pot. Despite their history with weed, Holland as a country, is no more knowledgeable than anyone else on the topic. There is no question that there will be some changes to their laws in the near future.
As for the bladder cancer link, it is one of the very few legitimate and it appears likely that the initial studies will be confirmed.
on the flip side
In 2009 the Cancer Prevention Research organization released the results of a long term study. Long term pot heads are ~62 percent less likely to develop head and neck cancers than people who did not smoke pot. No one understands how or why. http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/25/us-smoking-pot-idUSTRE57O5DC20090825
Even studies aside, we can not ignore the chemo patients whose lives were saved by the two effects of pot that we don't need a study to verify, it settles the stomach and it makes you hungry. The fact that chemo patients are not all tested to see if it helps them is rather sad. Chemo can be as nasty as anything imaginable.
Obviously weed can be abused and commonly is. There is no reason to exaggerate the issue. It is also obvious that it has some beneficial effects that need to be fully explored.
There are 100's of studies and no clear answers other than one simple fact. People who post messages in threads like this have generally made up their minds before they ever did a whit of research resulting in only researching for the answers they want to see.
Don't get me wrong, the pro pot camp is just as full of crap. Neither side are generally worth listening to. |
First ) the post that I wrote to JOBO, is in defense of a statement he made about cops and other people who (he says) are on MJ and hard drugs without any proof of any kind .
Secondly) if you have read my other post I said anyone can get addicted
to almost anything.
Addiction effects each of us differenly.
I have did my research, and found that the chronic user are at risk, just
like smokers, alcoholics and other drug users, I am concerned about the Teens, there is a good article in the Psychology to-day, about the use of MJ and Teens.If that can save one teen Than the article has done it's job..
Psychotic reactions have occured primarily in individuals with preexisting psychatric disorders of borderline type, and acute toxic states can occur, paticularly in association with chronic MJ use, but the casual role of MJ is at present unclear.(Quote from Philip Solomon , MD clinical professor
of Psychiatry)
Thirtly) I have not exaggerated in my posts, They were researched from my book , called "Handbook of Psychiatry"from University. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Angus Black
Volunteer Moderator
Joined: 02 Dec 2008
Posts: 6416
Location: BEHIND YOU!
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
People seem to equate the legalization of x0x0x0 to the social acceptance of using it. The two are not related.
Alcohol and tobacco is legal to sell. That doesn't mean all people should use it. Ideally no one would use either product but that's not reality.
No matter which side you are on with any debate you will inevitably find research to support your opinion.
Keeping x0x0x0 as an illegal substance is very expensive for Canadians. The "War on Drugs" ain't cheap and is very ineffective.
Legal prescribed drugs like oxycodone are real problem that would get more support if police weren't looking for bales of grass.
Edit
Cool. I didn't know it was a banned word. I feel safer now.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nero64
Joined: 09 May 2011
Posts: 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Angus Black wrote: |
People seem to equate the legalization of x0x0x0 to the social acceptance of using it. The two are not related.
Alcohol and tobacco is legal to sell. That doesn't mean all people should use it. Ideally no one would use either product but that's not reality.
No matter which side you are on with any debate you will inevitably find research to support your opinion.
Keeping x0x0x0 as an illegal substance is very expensive for Canadians. The "War on Drugs" ain't cheap and is very ineffective.
Legal prescribed drugs like oxycodone are real problem that would get more support if police weren't looking for bales of grass.
Edit
Cool. I didn't know it was a banned word. I feel safer now. |
I agree, however if we legalize it maybe we can control the THC level
and the age of the youg user.They should (just Like with alcohol and tabacco,) tax the hell out of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnstyle
Joined: 27 Dec 2012
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jobo2 wrote: |
Is a harmless weed. All laws governing pot should go up in smoke.
People should be able to grow it anytime, anywhere, as was true before 1923 in Canada and 1937 in the US.
Only by being illegal is there a profit motive and crime associated with pot.
And no, the gov't should not tax it, though that would still be preferable to being illegal. |
You really think they will make it legal and free tax?? Who is going to stop them?? You ? Or me? We live in Canada not Europe. Government officials are not scared of people here. They got away with G20 GST HST and everything else they want. Canadians are just to brainwashed to force the government to do whats best for us. End of story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jobo2
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Posts: 1572
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You really think they will make it legal and free tax?? |
No, I don't think they ever will. What I said was...they SHOULD.
Drug laws are not a deterrent to anyone who wants to use any drugs.
I don't know about Canada, but in the U.S., if drugs were legalized, how would the CIA fund their black ops? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WildExpressions
Joined: 17 Sep 2009
Posts: 2709
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
first off the CIA finance themselves with opium
THC level - it doesn't matter what the THC level is. If it is high people smoke less, if is low they smoke more. That said it is relatively easy to control the level as it is a trait of the strain of pot. Stabilized strains grow pretty consistently with in their expected traits.
The {Pro camp - A friend just sent me a link about the study that claims hemp oil cures cancer. It is the same type of story/propaganda as the anti weed camp uses. Blanket statements like it "CURES CANCER!" are always a warning just like people throwing in the completely meaningless references to it being addictive when scratching my arse on a rough post is 3 to 4 times more addictive. As soon as you see these types of statement I assume the person is ignorant, has an agenda or most likely both. If I am wrong it their fault, not mine. 
I think something has to change with the laws. As has been mentioned, the current system in not only ineffective, but mucho expensive on many levels in many ways.
I'd like to see medical use okay'd. I mean seriously, refusing people with cancer and MS just because .... well why exactly? I'd also like to see it legal to grow up to maybe 3 or 4 plants but I'd like to see people caught with a commercial operation do a lot more than 18 months with 2/3rd's off for good time. They should be doing serious time.
I do like the the idea of taxing it and selling it in liquor stores but it is not that simple. Liquor is manufactured inside of buildings with locks on doors and security. Pot is grown like corn .... rows and rows, acres and acres and the only thing you need to do to make it usable is to dry it out. The security you would need on those fields? I don't think it really can be grown on a commercial level at an affordable price well enough to even service a fraction of the market.
The tax thing? while I like it because we need another stream of revenue it is not the same thing as other vices.
Alcohol should be taxed huge because it kills a crap load of people every year and results in injury and property damage to a massive crap load more, either directly or indirectly. As high as the taxes are on it, those taxes likely fall short of the direct costs it places on enforcement and health care. Weed .... not so much eh.
If it could be regulated/taxed/age controlled distribution it would help out a lot with kids in schools. Weed is FAR easier to get in school than alcohol, at least for a pre-teen to young teen. Under the current system all it takes to get weed at school is to muse out loud, "I have some money, I wish I had some weed" and poof, it is a done deal. You might have to walk 100 ft or something. To get alcohol at that age? Pretty much got to steal it from your parents.
I'm 53 years old and because I'm open minded and (relatively) non judgmental I know a lot of people that smoke. It is like gay people. If you judge than chances are you do not know many gay people. If you don't judge you might hang out with mostly the same people and yet you know a lot of gay people. The difference in what you see and experience is generally you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jobo2
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Posts: 1572
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I look at it on a more fundamental level.
I own my body and mind, therefore the gov't has no (moral) right to dictate what I can and can not consume.
However, over time, we have all lost ownership of our own bodies and minds. We have given the deeds to ourselves to the gov't, allowing them to dictate to us what should be personal decisions.
The 'war on drugs' is a total sham, just like the 'war on poverty' or the 'war on terrorism'.
All dog and pony shows to fool the public into thinking the gov't is 'doing something' for the public good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
madison riedt
Joined: 17 Apr 2011
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i think you dirty hippies need to smarten up, if you want to smoke something, buy a pack of cigarettes. the Health board was paid off by hippies to make tobacco look harmful. serious, look it up on WIkipedia. x0x0x0 leads to multiple child births and bad breath, smoke Players |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EH.Question
Joined: 10 May 2010
Posts: 2362
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| madison riedt wrote: |
| i think you dirty hippies need to smarten up, if you want to smoke something, buy a pack of cigarettes. the Health board was paid off by hippies to make tobacco look harmful. serious, look it up on WIkipedia. x0x0x0 leads to multiple child births and bad breath, smoke Players |
Is it just me or did that sound like someone having a flashback ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jobo2
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Posts: 1572
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sounds more like a bum trip, man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WildExpressions
Joined: 17 Sep 2009
Posts: 2709
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EH.Question wrote: |
| madison riedt wrote: |
| i think you dirty hippies need to smarten up, if you want to smoke something, buy a pack of cigarettes. the Health board was paid off by hippies to make tobacco look harmful. serious, look it up on WIkipedia. x0x0x0 leads to multiple child births and bad breath, smoke Players |
Is it just me or did that sound like someone having a flashback ? |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WildExpressions
Joined: 17 Sep 2009
Posts: 2709
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jobo2 wrote: |
I look at it on a more fundamental level.
I own my body and mind, therefore the gov't has no (moral) right to dictate what I can and can not consume. |
While I largely agree with you we do have public health care. Maybe there should be an option to allow people to opt out of the benefits of our society and in return society would allow those people to do what ever they wanted. That would be a true freeman option vs. the current freeman concept which is moronic.
Everybody wants it both ways. They want to be treated like an intelligent adult but they don't act like one and as soon as things goes bad they want all the benefits they spent their entire life whining about paying for. Sooner or later we all use those benefits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Copyright © 2012 eBay International AG.
