NO ONE has ever died from smoking weed, legalize marijuana NOW IS THE TIME

[DainBramaged]

NO ONE HAS EVER, OR WILL EVER DIE FROM SMOKING WEED. You may die from something else, WHILE smoking weed. Contrary to popular believe, Marijuana DOES NOT kill brain cells, it DOES NOT destroy organs. THC is the chemical in weed that makes you get the feeling, it has NO negative side effects. Its the only chemical used by the body. Everything else is exhaled. People believe it makes you not think as well, this is simply untrue. People have killed people and killed themselves while high, but this has nothing to do with being high. They would have killed the person or themselves even if they weren't high. It does NOT impair the brains ability to do...anything. The people that have killed themselves under the influence of Marijuana, is only because Marijuana makes you feel happy. Many people that commit suicide are depressed, so they smoke weed so they might get happier. Sometimes it helps, and the person rethinks their decision. Sometimes it doesn't...sometimes they don't smoke strong enough, or enough to get "happy enough" not to kill themselves. Marijuana has nothing to do with it. There are ONLY...I MEAN ONLY 2 reasons why Marijuana is outlawed....


1. Just like Moonshine, the United States would not be able to collect taxes on it, for it can be grown virtually anywhere unlike tobacco. Yet there is one company permitted to make moonshine and sell it, they do have to pay taxes on it and they cannot make it more than 50% alcohol.

2. In the early 1900's, Mexicans would come in the united states. Many of them so they could sell their Marijuana easier. This caused violence...fights over sales, robbing sellers, etc. Some guy (I cannot recall his name) didn't like this. So he tried to outlaw it, but he couldn't because it was not "dangerous" enough. The government had nothing against it that would need it to be outlawed. He Started talking about the taxes. The government was listening yet still wasn't very concerned. In the 1930's he started making movies about Marijuana. These movies disgust me. One had a kid in it...He was smoking marijuana. One day he was talking to his mom and his mother saw a joint fall out of his pocket. His mother went to bend down to pick it up, he picked up a knife and stabbed and killed his mother...At the end of the video it was said the only reason he killed his mother is because of the marijuana influenced him. This is ignorant. There are 5-10 movies like this.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080206163707AA9gZZR

Enough of this Fundie ConJob bullshit. The benefits greatly outweigh the negatives.

[dysfunctional press]

1. "Just like Moonshine, the United States would not be able to collect taxes on it."

if it's legalized- you can bet that they'll be collecting taxes on it.

as it is already, it's like moonshine- illegal and no taxes collected.

when it's legal, it'll be like beer- sure you can do it yourself at home tax-free, but most people will buy it at the store, where it's taxed.

[JuniperLea]

4. Think of the billionaires who own the major distilleries of the world...

Do you think anyone at Seagram's thought it unwise to continue production through Prohibition? Do you think old Sam Bronfman cared that his product would be taxed? Do you think he (and his heirs) have made a fortune in tax for the US? You bet your sweet whiskey and rye they have!

We need to look at the arguments for ending Prohibition!! I'm betting they would work in this case as well. Increase tax revenue, decrease police and prison spending all in one fell swoop!!!

[dysfunctional press]

6. why would any of them discontinue production for prohibition?

they had plenty of customers besides those in the u.s.

[JuniperLea]

9. I said that poorly...

Distracted...

It's been documented that shipments of booze sat offshore, and over the Canadian border, ready to flood the US with "legal" booze once prohibition was lifted. They kept production up as if they were selling here. I'm betting Joe Kennedy's push in this regard changed the perspective of legislators.

What we need right now is a weed Bronfman or Kennedy! Someone with big bucks to spin the taxation message!

[Mythsaje]

11. It's also documented that it wasn't just sitting off-shore, that

Canadian liquor manufacturers made a mint smuggling illegal booze into the country.

[MADem]

29. And you could get booze--from your pharmacist, with a doctor's prescription.

http://cocktails.about.com/od/history/a/prohibition_2.htm

Another interesting provision to prohibition was that alcohol was available via a physician’s prescription. For centuries liquor had been used for medicinal purposes, in fact many of the liqueurs we know today were first developed as miracle cures for various ailments. Despite the fact that in 1916 whiskey and brandy were removed from The Pharmacopeia of the United States of America and in 1917 the American Medical Association stated that alcohol “…use in therapeutics as a tonic or stimulant or for food has no scientific value…” and voted in support of prohibition, there was still a belief in liquor's medicinal benefits among many.

Because of this established belief that liquor could cure and prevent a variety of ailments, doctors were still able to prescribe liquor to patients on a specially designed government prescription form that could be filled at any pharmacy. When medicinal whiskey stocks were low the government would increase its production. A significant amount of the prescription alcohol supplies were diverted from their intended destinations by bootleggers and corrupt individuals during prohibition.

[MADem]

14. I think they'll pull the price down if it's legalized. Sounds like a great "flip" for the tobacco

companies--they've already got the cigarette making machinery, all they need to do is adjust their packaging. I think they might go to the packets that are popular in countries where tobacco is already heavily taxed, with the five cigarette, seven cigarette, ten cigarette, twenty and twenty-five cigarette packets.

If they can deliver an affordable, smooth product, already rolled, with no "ditch weed" or insecticide or paraquat mixed in, even with the expense of a tax stamp added in, I think plenty of people would cheerfully buy it for the convenience. Only the diehard old-school hippies would keep on "rolling their own."

[dysfunctional press]

23. i doubt that the overall price would come down too far if it's legalized-

they already know how much people are willing to spend, and will tax it accordingly.

if it's legalized and sold by corporations, i'd rather see it put out as green butter by land o'lakes.

[MADem]

26. I do. Why? Because if they don't pull the price down, people will start growing their own.

Hell, it's legal at that point. Who in their right mind would pay that much for shit that used to cost ten bucks an OUNCE back in the sixties?

They'll grow their own, at home. But they won't be hiding in the basement doing it--they'll do it on their balconies and in their fenced back yards! They'll tend their plants carefully, and people who get real good at doing it will sell to their friends.

There's a "price point" that's a good deal lower than what people are paying now. During prohibition, booze cost a fortune (and you could get it, if you lived in a reasonable metropolis--you could also get it from your pharmacist with a doctor's prescription), which is why people went to making bathtub gin and that "little home winemaker" in the ethnic neighborhood suddenly became a popular guy. People also got very adept at brewing beer at home as well.

People pay more now because it's illegal, and they're paying for the risk and the furtive transport of the product as well as the product itself. Economies of scale should cut the price in half, at least, even with taxes. And strength is an issue, too--some pot today is "too strong" for some of the people who are used to a less intense product. The tobacco companies could also vary the intensity of the stuff by modulating the amount of THC in the product, so that people can choose between mild, medium, strong, or very strong, according to their preferences.

[dysfunctional press]

31. people can brew their own beer and wine- but liquor stores do just fine.

the VAST majority of people aren't going to grow it- many of them, people who live in apartments, for instance- don't have the space.
if you grow outdoors- there's one growing season and one harvest per year. and the harvest from a planter box on the balcony isn't going to see most people thru to next year's harvest. indoor growing might be an option for some- but the smell is going to be a drawback to a lot of people(or their spouse).
and people who grow in their backyard garden would have to find a way to protect against thieves that might show up in the middle of the night around harvest time...

[MADem]

35. That's why a german shepherd is a good choice for a garden watchdog.

Or a doberman....

If wine cost a hundred bucks a box, you'd better bet that a lot of people would be making their own. Same with beer. The current "price point" for pot is much too high. It needs to come down to the beer and wine parameters.

[dysfunctional press]

36. consider how long a bottle of wine lasts...

then consider how long a half ounce of weed will last most people.

the buzz contained in a bottle of wine is probably comparable to a couple of joints or so...

you should be comparing the case cost of good wine to the bag cost of weed...and that's about where it already is...in fact, buzz for buzz- pot is already cheaper.

[MADem]

45. Consider how long a BOX of wine lasts....

You get a "buzz" from box wine, too--and it's cheap.

The idea behind good wine isn't to get trashed on it, or even overly "buzzed." It's an entirely different situation--unless you're a wealthy jerk who does such a foolsih and wasteful thing.

Mark my words. The price will go down--there will be competition, and competition always lowers prices.

There's only one way the price will stay artificially high--and that's if price controls are implemented.

In which case, the old pot growers and dealers will simply undercut the store price.

[dysfunctional press]

47. keep on dreaming...

the point of all of it is moot until/unless they legalize anything- which isn't going to happen anytime soon, anyway.

and just like there are wine fines and cheap wines- there is cheap weed and fine weed, and several steps in between.

btw- iirc the price of pot in the netherlands didn't drop significantly when it was made legal to sell in amsterdam.

[MADem]

59. I'm not dreaming, particularly. I'm simply taking a look at the market.

The price of pot in the Netherlands is far, FAR more reasonable than in the USA, even factoring in that cigarette prices in Europe are much higher than USA:

http://www.amsterdam.info/drugs/
It is a common knowledge throughout the world, that in Amsterdam you may just enter a coffee shop and buy drugs; even more – you will be handed a menu with drugs of the day, and there might be even a special on the menu. It is all accessible - for four joints you will pay the same amount as for twenty cigarettes. Nobody will arrest you, because it is all legal. So what kind of laws are these? . . .

. . . Applying these ideas to their drug laws the Dutch try as much as possible to decriminalize the use of drugs, making it a private matter of each individual, and not a matter for the enforcement apparatus. Production, trading and stocking drugs remain a criminal offence, as in any other country.

. . . Soft drugs as cannabis in all its forms (marijuana, hashish, hash oil) and hallucinogenic mushrooms (so called magic mushrooms or paddos – from Dutch: paddestoel - mushroom) are legal under condition of so called “personal use”. As a result smoking of cannabis even in public, is not prosecuted as well as selling it although technically illegal under still valid Opium Act (dating from 1919, cannabis added as drug in 1950), is widely tolerated provided that it happens in a limited, controlled way (in a coffee shop, small portions, 5 grams maximum transaction, not many portions on stock, sale only to adults, no minors on the premises, no advertisement of drugs, the local municipality did not give the order to close the coffee shop).

Situation changed recently in regard to the hallucinogenic mushrooms (also known as magic mushrooms or paddos), the sale of which has been forbidden starting November 1, 2008. Almost 200 different mushrooms were forbidden and are presently regarded by the Dutch drug law (so called Opiumwet – Opium Act) as dangerous as cocaine or heroine. Never really considered as drugs before, the paddos were previously sold by the so called smart shops along with popular natural medicines as Ginkgo Biloba, Guarana, Cola, some herbs, food additives and vitamins. The decision to stop their sale has been taken after almost a hundred cases were recorded each year, when the medical help has been required linked to the consumption of paddos in Amsterdam only, involving mainly foreign tourists. Tragically, three of these cases ended as serious accidents, one of them in the tragic death of the 17-year old French girl. Hundreds of people demonstrated in Amsterdam against the ban, before it had been introduced. The municipality of Amsterdam, fearing the under counter sales, was against the ban proposing instead three days of waiting period before every purchase. This proposal has not been accepted. Today the hallucinogenic mushrooms are forbidden in the Netherlands, along with the hard drugs.

Strictly restricted quantities, large scale cultivation forbidden
In the Netherlands, there are strict laws limiting quantities of the admitted soft drugs, conditions of theirs sale and use. Driving under the influence of the soft drugs is equal to driving under the influence of alcohol. Large scale growing, processing and trading in marijuana is still forbidden as in any other country, but the penalties given by the courts are much lower than abroad.

Some of the municipalities in the Netherlands introduce their own additional regulations regarding specific issues related to law enforcement, prosecution and use of the soft drugs. In the spirit of pragmatism, minor offences as a small violation of the admitted quantities, are usually not prosecuted, since the prosecution and imprisonment is seen by the authorities as expensive and linked to several other negative social effects which outweigh the positive. . . .

[dysfunctional press]

64. you're dreaming until it's legalized. which is most likely a long way off.

i've been smoking pot for over thirty years, and that WHOLE time, there have been people preaching that we're just a 'couple years' away from legalization.
i don't see us as any closer today than we were 30 years ago.

[MADem]

68. Well, I am an old fart, so people don't offer it to me much, and I have no idea where to buy it

but I would if I could.

I think we're much closer than we were thirty years ago. I live in a state where it's recently been "decriminalized." You get a ticket and a cop swipes your pot if you get caught. A hundred bucks. No court date, no nothing. That's "much closer" than court, jail and thousand dollar fines, certainly. Other states have gone a similar route.

Thirty years ago, there was no viable "medical marijuana" option, either. I think your glass (or bong) is half empty.

[NashVegas]

100. The Great Delusion: Smokers Will Be Able to Grow Their Own and Sell to Friends

If MJ is to become legalized, it's not going to happen that way.

It's going to become regulated up the ying yang, and you're going to pay a $20k - $50k license to sell, renewable for $10k each year. You will be bonded and carry liability insurance. Your outfit will need to pass health board inspections, and possibly FDA approval.

In the meantime, Monsanto and Eli Lilly are going to scrounge around and buy up all the seed, probably make a few modifications and patent it.

Bottom line: if MJ becomes legal, it will only be because DC and the people who own our government have found a way to shut "the wrong sort" (ie, the small grower or individual) out from making any money out of it, and claim all prospecting for themselves.

[xultar]

2. So no cancer risk @ all? That's cool. I'm for it, though I've never smoked.

[JuniperLea]

7. It's being used by asthma patients too...

It opens air passages making breathing easier. It lowers blood pressure, and pressure in the eyes of glaucoma patients, and many cancer patients have reported it was the only thing to save them from the nausea and pain of chemotherapy.

The list of benefits is amazing.

[tridim]

84. My Dad's doctor used to give him marijuana for asthma in the 50's.

He told me it worked very quickly and very effectively.

[Mythsaje]

12. Actually, I guess current research suggests negative cancer risk...

In fact, it might help prevent some cancers. As well as Alzheimers (as will caffeine, possibly).

[Xithras]

21. There's some nasty crap in marijuana smoke, but it's not linked to cancer.

Whenever you burn cellular material, you're going to get loads of byproducts. In marijuana, those byproducts include ammonia, cyanide, carbon monoxide, and NOx. Marijuana is a plant, and all plants leach materials from the soil and generate chemicals for their internal cellular processes. Other than carbon monoxide, those chemicals occur in levels that are generally considered acceptable. Carbon monoxide inhalation occurs at higher levels than tobacco use, mostly owing to the fact that joints aren't filtered, and it occurs at levels that are considered harmful if sustained over a long period.

The link between smoking pot and lung cancer is murky. Studies performed outside of the U.S. have shown that test groups of long term pot smokers reported substantially higher rates of lung cancer (lower than tobacco users, but much higher than background numbers). None of those studies have been detailed enough to isolate pot as the causative agent of those cancers however, and the number of people monitored has always been too small to definitively test (the number of long term pot smokers willing to identify themselves to researchers for testing is pretty tiny, owing to the illegality of weed).

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that there's probably some risk though. More generalized research indicates that the introduction of ANY foreign substances into the lungs...whether dust, tobacco, asbestos, or smog...increases the risk of lung cancer if the material lasts long enough to build up. Anyone who has ever cleaned the resin from a pipe knows that pot smoke leaves a bit behind.

Do like I did in college...just bake it into a brownie. All the high, and none of the health questions.

[texastoast]

65. Aren't the brownies better if

You, ahem, toast the plant material a little first then bake them? I have a friend who swears by this method. I'm certainly good with brownies in any manner they are baked. Cookies too. Oh, some serious chocolate chip cookie memories. ;)

[truedelphi]

98. Although no one ever OD'ed on marijuana -

I know many people who tried!

If it was possible to smoke yoursself to death on pot, these people woul dhave done so.

Still and all, the greatest risk to the pot smoker has always been the fact that getting caught might land the user in jail.

[noamnety]

3. Although I am in favor of legalization

and I think it's less harmful than other legal substances, inhaling ANY small particulate matter damages lungs, and I find your blanket statement that it causes NO harmful side effects as irresponsible as similar statements from tobacco companies who advanced that belief to fit their ulterior motives.

"In many societies, marijuana is the second most commonly smoked substance after tobacco. While delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is unique to marijuana and nicotine to tobacco, the smoke of marijuana, like that of tobacco, consists of a toxic mixture of gases and particulates, many of which are known to be harmful to the lung. Although far fewer marijuana than tobacco cigarettes are generally smoked on a daily basis, the pulmonary consequences of marijuana smoking may be magnified by the greater deposition of smoke particulates in the lung due to the differing manner in which marijuana is smoked. Whereas THC causes modest short-term bronchodilation, regular marijuana smoking produces a number of long-term pulmonary consequences, including chronic cough and sputum, histopathologic evidence of widespread airway inflammation and injury and immunohistochemical evidence of dysregulated growth of respiratory epithelial cells, that may be precursors to lung cancer. The THC in marijuana could contribute to some of these injurious changes through its ability to augment oxidative stress, cause mitochondrial dysfunction, and inhibit apoptosis. On the other hand, physiologic, clinical or epidemiologic evidence that marijuana smoking may lead to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or respiratory cancer is limited and inconsistent. Habitual use of marijuana is also associated with abnormalities in the structure and function of alveolar macrophages, including impairment in microbial phagocytosis and killing that is associated with defective production of immunostimulatory cytokines and nitric oxide, thereby potentially predisposing to pulmonary infection. In view of the growing interest in medicinal marijuana, further epidemiologic studies are needed to clarify the true risks of regular marijuana smoking on respiratory health."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16128224

[Mythsaje]

13. Of course it's not harm-free...

Of course, if vaporizers weren't illegal in the states, it would be far less harmful than it already is.

[Rebubula]

25. Legality...

...I am not sure. However, I have ordered two online and bought another from a head shop in Baltimore.

They are easily obtainable.

[Mythsaje]

28. Huh. Last I heard they weren't even available here.

Of course, that was during the Tommy Chong pogrom, so maybe things have changed.

[slampoet]

54. The Chong case is were govt. entrapped Chong's business to send to Pennsylvania where it is illegal.

[Flaneur]

62. Chong was busted under federal paraphernalia laws.

For bongs, not vaporizers.

He was prosecuted by US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan in Pittsburgh, who apparently doesn't have anything better to do. Federal bong prosecutions are rare because most prosecutors aren't as insane as Buchanan.

[DainBramaged]

81. Mary Beth Buchanan’s Going Away Present: Jack Murtha?

In December, US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan wrote a letter declaring that she would not resign at the end of the Bush Administration.

Last month, Buchanan released a letter stating that she had no intention of submitting her resignation. An ideologically committed Federalist Society member, Buchanan is close to former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who actively promoted her as U.S. attorney. Following her appointment in 2001, Buchanan quickly gained the favor and approval of the White House. In the key period of 2004-05, while groundwork was laid for what later became the U.S. attorney's scandal, Buchanan served as director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the key position at Justice that oversaw all the 94 U.S. attorneys. A later internal Justice Department probe, in which Buchanan figures prominently, highlights the role played by that office in Karl Rove’s plan to sack U.S. attorneys.

She said she had to stick around, at least partly, so she could see her trumped up prosecution of Cyril Wecht through.

The second case is a corruption prosecution of one of the country’s most prominent medical examiners, Dr. Cyril Wecht, also not coincidentally a leading figure in Pittsburgh Democratic politics. The charges brought against Wecht involve a long list of petty accusations, including that he used his office telephone and fax machine for personal matters. These charges happen to bear remarkable similarity to accusations of petty improprieties that flew around Buchanan’s mentor Santorum in the two years before Pennsylvania voters retired him from public life in 2006. Buchanan, however, opted not to pursue any of the accusations surrounding Santorum. Wecht’s defense counsel, former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, who served under George H.W. Bush and was governor of Pennsylvania, testified before a House Judiciary inquiry that Buchanan’s prosecution was improper and politically motivated. "It is not the type of case normally constituting a federal 'corruption' case brought against a local official," said Thornburgh. "There is no allegation that Dr. Wecht ever solicited or received a bribe or kickback. There is no allegation that Dr. Wecht traded on a conflict of interest in conducting the affairs of his selected office." The case was originally tried before a judge appointed by George W. Bush who, though close to Buchanan, refused to recuse himself and forbade defense counsel in any way from referencing Buchanan’s political motivation. The trial ended in a hung jury, which divided sharply in favor of Wecht’s acquittal. Afterward, individual jurors harshly criticized Buchanan’s conduct and she responded by sending FBI agents to “interview” them.

Notwithstanding broad appeals from the Pennsylvania legal community for Buchanan to drop the case, she has pledged to continue it. The judge who originally oversaw the case, meanwhile, has been removed by order of an appeals court. Buchanan cites the supposedly unresolved Wecht case as a reason why she must stay on as U.S. attorney.

But I think she's got much bigger Democratic fish she wants to stick around to fry: Jack Murtha. The NYT follows up on what ABC reported earlier: that investigators conducted two raids on entities associated with Murtha.

Federal investigators have raided the offices of the PMA Group, one of Washington's biggest lobbying firms, as part of an investigation into potentially improper campaign contributions, a person briefed on the investigators' questions said Monday night.


http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/10/mary-beth-buchanans-going-away-present-jack-murtha/


The charges against Dr. Cyril Wecht, the celebrity forensic pathologist and prominent Pittsburgh-area Democrat, will be dismissed.

U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, a Bush appointee who had been accused of pursuing a politically motivated prosecution against Wecht, this morning filed a motion to drop the charges, reports the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/mary_beth_buchanan/

[Flaneur]

60. Vaporizers are widely available and easily purchased.

[piratefish08]

56. vaporizers are legal. any legal herb or tobacco has a vaporization point......

as do the more FUN ones as well............

:smoke:

[Mythsaje]

57. Tells you how out of the loop I am...

They weren't last I checked.

[dysfunctional press]

24. it doesn't need to be smoked.

vaporizors are one route- cooking is another.
i lie to make green butter- and then use that to make fudge. yummy!.

[Greyhound]

32. This study is far from conclusive and

purposely ignores all of the studies that have been, and are being, carried out in the more sane parts of the world.

Both Tashkin and the Geffen School have made providing desired results in exchange for more and larger grants their priority and like all of the preceding government studies of "teh evul weed", it is conducted with the objective of "proving" the correctness of the government's position. That is not science, that is propaganda.

[noamnety]

33. The quote SAYS it's inconclusive and needs more study.

How is that propaganda?

I suggest looking at the OP again for propaganda, as they make an unfounded claim and state it as indisputable fact.

I would also reflect on the effect of any particulate matter inhaled into the lungs. That's why asbestos and regular old DE are cancerous - not because they are toxic as substances, but because of the size of the particles that get into the lungs.

[Greyhound]

38. So you equate cannabis smoke to asbestos?

Again, you are making statements with no basis in science. Inhalation of particulates happens to everyone with every breath taken (except someone living in a level 4 clean room, I suppose) for their whole life. Aside: DE = diatonatious earth?

Breathing earth atmosphere is cancerous?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. "Breathing earth atmosphere is cancerous?"

Pretty much, yeah.

Not terribly risky, no. But that person is right, particulate matter causes cancer.

[noamnety]

49. Yes - I am relating inhaling particulates (in smoke) to inhaling other particulates.

The relationship between inhaling particles and cancer is based in science, you're mistaken if you believe there's no connection.

"Inhalation of particulates happens to everyone with every breath taken (except someone living in a level 4 clean room, I suppose) for their whole life."

Absolutely. And - just like with lead levels in water - there is a strong correlation between the concentration of it and how ill it makes you. That's why the EPA allows only 15 ppb of lead in water, and it's why they recommend only consuming cold water from the tap, not hot (from the tap).

The normal concentration in normal air is obviously not as concentrated as the levels of particulates in visible smoke.

From http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/indoor/combustf.htm

POLLUTANT: PARTICLES (PM10)
DESCRIPTION: Small Inhalable Particles
HEALTH EFFECTS: Nose, Throat and Eye Irritation, Emphysema, Bronchitis, Allergies, Asthma, Respiratory and Ear Infections, Lung Cancer
SOURCES: Tobacco Smoke, Woodburning, Kerosene Heaters, Charcoal Grills, Incense Burning, House Dust, Hobbies, Polluted Outdoor Air

I am shocked that people don't know that inhalation of small particles of any sort causes cancer. Do they not teach this in high school health classes? I thought we all learned this back with the asbestos thing.


Aside: DE = diatonatious earth, yes. Harmless in swimming pool filters, recommended to add to soil to reduce garden pests, cancer causing to handle because of the small particulate size - which is why it's recommended to apply it using a regular old dust mask.

[Taverner]

5. Anyone unrecs this will end up with a knuckle sammich

[JuniperLea]

10. You better put up your dukes!

Because when I rec'd it, it said it had less than zero recs!!

[Iggo]

17. See now that's just asking for it.

;-)

[mdmc]

8. 5

[texastoast]

15. 7

Absolutely. It is so ridiculous that it is illegal. We got Everclear, a substance where it is very easy after consumption to wake up dead.

Meanwhile, hemp can provide for our needs with so much less environmental impact: clothing, construction materials, paper, fuel, medicine.

Oh, NOW we know why "they" want to keep it illegal.

[AlphaCentauri]

16. What about the effects of marijuana on Mentally ill patients

is there a study on that, I know many users also have mental illnesses

[Blue_In_AK]

22. How about the effects of alcohol on mentally ill patients?

I know many users also have mental illnesses.

[Echo In Light]

30. And how do you "know" that "many users have mental illness?"

For what it's worth, I know and have known many people, and although being a dope smoker my view may be biased, but some of the more truly fucked up people I've known were/are those who didn't/don't smoke weed.

[Mythsaje]

58. I've known several who suffered from bipolar disorder and anxiety disorders

but then we fall into the question of whether smoking is an attempt to self-medicate, which I believe it is.

[Echo In Light]

71. There are many 'drugs' not labeled as such in this culture that are used in an attempt...

..."to self-medicate." And, again, in my admittedly biased view, the more commonly accepted ones (greed, consumerism, careerism, superficiality, to name a few) are far more damaging than smoking reefer. My two cents on it.

[Mythsaje]

73. Oh, probably...

I know some people who probably shouldn't smoke because it exacerbates their already bad social anxiety (and I know while it can decrease the effects of general anxiety in many, that's not something I've observed with social anxiety at all). As long as someone isn't prone to paranoia on pot (and the majority I've known don't seem to be), generalized anxiety can be decreased considerably.

Alcohol, on the other hand, is great for treating either. Until the point you drink enough to look like an ass (think you're socially anxious BEFORE, try it now after you've made a fool of yourself) or drink enough to wake up with a hangover the next morning STILL having the same issues that made you want to drink in the first place.

[winyanstaz]

18. A great factor in the outlawing of marijuana is that Dupont doesn't want it.

Dupont makes artificial paint thinner...marijuana makes a great natural, bio-degradable paint thinner. Dupont makes plastics..marijuana makes a bio-degradable plastic like material. Dupont makes a plastic rope. Marijuana makes hemp ropes, also bio-degradable. Dupont was the money behind a lot of the anti-marijuana movies and propaganda.

Also the fact that every single thing the government wants to control it first demonizes and then passes laws to make it illegal. The U.S. government owns the patients on all the great marijuana "brand" names already. They own the brand names of maui-wowee, Acapulco Gold, Tai-sticks, Panama Red, etc.

To me this says that they already, long in advance, planned to someday "legalize" it so they can make money and control it..and I think that day is almost upon us.

If it ever becomes legal I shall happily line up to pay my taxes too long as they keep it cheap enough I can afford it :P

[FormerDittoHead]

19. What are you talking about? I'm dying for some right now!

:toast:
:rofl:

[gauguin57]

20. I seem to remember someone throwing him/herself out the window because of a REEFER ...

[DainBramaged]

51. Got a link???????

[MADem]

63. Did you not see the pic of the poster? NT

[Jester Messiah]

27. American farmers could surely do with another cash crop.

The stuff grows like... well, weeds!

[dysfunctional press]

39. putting hemp in rotation with other crops would greatly reduce the need for fertilizers...

pot does a great job of putting nitrogen back into the soil.

[defendandprotect]

76. Hemp is also good for the ozone layer .... if we still have one???

[FatDave]

34. Whenever legalization comes up for serious consideration...

...like it did in California a week or two ago, why is it always law enforcement who has a problem with it? For example:

Ammiano’s measure is staunchly opposed by law enforcement groups, but the lawmaker argues that it would generate much-needed revenue for the state, restrict access to only those over 21, end environmental damage caused to public lands by illicit crops and redirect police efforts to “more serious” crimes.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/a-pot-tax.html

Al Roker did a MSNBC special about weed a few months ago, and the only people who thought it was worthwhile to bust cannabis users/growers/sellers were DEA officers.

Why are cops so interested in maintaining the status quo when it comes to weed? Do they just enjoy the easy busts? Is it all the free weed they can seize from kids? I spent too much time a week or so ago arguing with some dumb cop on twitter, and the bulk of his argument was "potheads are dumb, gateway drug, alcohol is great because it's legal".

Seriously, these guys deal with how many violent drunks every night? And they think weed is a problem? I don't get it at all.

[dysfunctional press]

48. funding.

the war on pot/drugs can be very lucrative for some police departments.

[nolabels]

37. How about if it came in pill or some other edible form?

I cannot see how inhalation of heated gas could be healthful :shrug:

Psychoactive drugs all have their problems but having them being made illegal makes for even more problems. Regulation and education makes much more sense

[Union Yes]

43. It is available in both. Pill form is pretty rare ATM but legalization would change that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6116368

Some info on eating pot and many ways to eat it.

:hippie:

[sarcasmo]

40. But what would happen to all the revenue the Prison Industrial Complex receives from the war on weed

Do I really need a sarcasm tag?

[texastoast]

67. You made a huge point

Lots of special interests interested in illegality integrity infinitely.

[guitar man]

42. Exactly

If you could die from smoking it, I'm pretty sure I never would have made it out of my 20s :rofl:

[piratefish08]

61. I've been partaking for 27 years on a regular basis......

married, professional, 4 children, gainfully employed --- never a health problem related in any way to smoking weed. If anything, it has IMPROVED my health by relieving stress and improving my sleep....

and dammit, it's just plain ENJOYABLE!

(for the record, I rarely drink - 3 beers and I'm hungover)

[Union Yes]

44. Rec'd

:hippie:

[OnyxCollie]

46. My 30 year friendship ended last week

when my friend drank himself to death. I went to his wake yesterday. I hadn't seen him in years and was shocked by his appearance. A picture taken at his 40th birthday party last month showed his bloated face. He looked like he was wearing some grotesque, fat guy prosthetic on his face.

The person who had found him dead in his house after three days told me that my friend had learned he had liver damage from drinking, but he refused to stop.

We both started smoking 20 years ago. He drank heavily. I didn't. I'm alive and he's dead.

Why is alcohol legal and pot isn't?

[DainBramaged]

50. I am so so sorry. Words just cant say enough.

[Union Yes]

52. Very sorry to hear of your loss.

May your friend RIP.

[texastoast]

53. I'm so sorry

Twenty years of hard drinking will do that. I lost one of my best friends that way in the 90's. It's just crazy that alcohol is legal and pot is not.

:hug:

[CrownPrinceBandar]

55. Sorry about your friend...........

my uncle was diagnosed w/ liver disease when he started showing the same symptoms as your friend: rapid weight gain, torpor, etc... Luckily they caught it relatively early and he's expected to make somewhat of a recovery, but his life will be changed forever because he drank with abandon for over 40 yrs and never thought it would catch up to him.

[sarcasmo]

72. Sorry about your loss, the only reason to me is boozes is taxed and weed is not.

[JNelson6563]

66. Now is the time, you're right!

Damn straight Skippy! :toast:

[inna]

69. moreover, no one has ever even OVERDOSED on marijuana. nt

[redqueen]

70. Your post made me wonder how many people die of alcohol poisoning

every year.

[inna]

74. not that many actually, only about 1,000 a year (i just checked)...

The annual average number of deaths for which alcohol poisoning was listed as an underlying cause was 317, with an age-adjusted death rate of 0.11 per 100,000 population. An average of 1,076 additional deaths included alcohol poisoning as a contributing cause, bringing the total number of deaths with any mention of alcohol poisoning to 1,393 per year (0.49 per 100,000 population).

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CXH/is_1_27/ai_112937520/

but while deaths actually caused by alcohol *poisoning* are rare, alcohol-related mortality is quite high.

it's both deaths from alcohol-related traffic (and other) accidents and deaths caused by a whole host of alcohol-related illnesses...


(let alone minor issues such as absenteeism and massive hangovers.)

[DainBramaged]

77. That's 1393 more PER YEAR than pot has caused

NO ONE can argue that pot is anywhere NEAR as hazardous as devil booze.

[inna]

78. like i said, no one has EVER even OVERDOSED on pot. nt

[inna]

79. clarification: not just in terms of not DYING from an overdose, but in terms of not exhibiting sympo

but in terms of not exhibiting common symptoms of a non-life threatening overdose, such as hangover, headache, nausea, etc....

and its common manifestations such as absenteeism...

just saying.

:hide:

[DainBramaged]

80. The ONLY thing a pot smoker ever destroyed was a bag of Oreos

[defendandprotect]

75. Right wing fear-mongering . . . some of those movies still around . . .

[harmonicon]

82. THC impairs my brain's ability to do almost anything

What do you think getting high is? "opening the third eye, man"? No, it fucks you up. It also has shit-loads of tar in it which can seriously fuck up your lungs. I'm not against legalization, but these claims that pot is some kind of harmless wonder drug are just ridiculous, and a large part of the reason why pro-legalization arguments aren't taken more seriously.

[tridim]

85. Not harmless, but non-toxic..

and it's most certainly a wonder drug according to recent studies. Unless of course you ignore the studies as most drug warriors and big-pharma lobbyists tend to do.

I smoke for stress relief primarily and sleep secondarily. I do so because I don't want to take narcotic pharmaceuticals until I absolutely need to. You know what? It does the job wonderfully, and the only side effects are euphoria and the possibility of prison. To this day I have never taken a narcotic pharma drug, simply because I don't need to.

Stress is a killer and I'm thankful every day that a natural cure exists.

[harmonicon]

88. good for you

I have horrible insomnia and smoking a spliff is one of the only things that can put me to sleep. I had to cut it out though, because (even as a cigarette smoker) I couldn't stand the way my lungs would feel the next morning. It also makes Peter Sellers movies even more funny than usual.

[NashVegas]

87. I'm So Grateful I Don't Have to Try To Raise Children in This Century

It's one thing for a teenager to smoke pot as a way of questioning or rebelling against authority. Eventually most get past it, so by all means, decriminalize. Most people who sell marijuana to end users are people who sell in order to support their own habit, and are entirely fucking clueless if they think they aren't going to be regulated out of the market if the drug is legalized.

Ain't gonna happen. What will happen is MJ is going to start being advertised in magazines, on TV, and on the web. It's hard enough for parents who try to teach their kids about responsible alcohol usage. Now you want to go and ad another? Great.

[krabigirl]

92. Um, I don't see the big deal. I would tell my kids not to do it before the legal age. ro

Then again, I will show them responsible alcohol use, like wine with dinner. Puritanical American ideals are going the way of the dodo bird (but the ones in favor of them are fighting back hard right now...)

[NashVegas]

95. ... Like Wine With Dinner

And are you going to show them responsible marijuana use?

Do you expect the majority of Americans who do not do MJ to voluntarily get stoned, just so they can show their kids what responsible MJ use looks like?

[DainBramaged]

90. NO ONE has ever died from smoking pot

you can tell us everything we already know, but consider this;

MOST cigarette smokers smoke ONE to TWO PACKS a day.

How much pot does the average pot smoker smoke? Oh, and NO ONE puts harmful chemicals in pot like the tobacco companies do to cigarettes.

[harmonicon]

93. that doesn't mean that it's not bad for you. News Flash:

inhaling smoke - any kind of smoke - into your lungs is NOT GOOD for them.

[DainBramaged]

97. (sigh) N/T

[Maru Kitteh]

102. Yes they do put chemicals on it, they're called pesticides and sometimes herbicides

If you are like the majority of consumers, you don't know who's been spraying what kind of shit on your smoke.

[XemaSab]

83. A dude in my high school died from smoking weed

His lungs collapsed. x(

[Echo In Light]

91. Was it determined that smoking pot was what caused it, or genetic issues aggravated by it?

Big, big difference there, but the anti-pot crowd would love to leave it as is so long as it casts marijuana in a negative light.

[dugaresa]

86. inhaling smoke of any kind will irritate your lungs

if I were to rate the things that were dangerous to inhale I would rate them in severity as:

1. Accidental inhalation of an object (food, water..etc)
2. Inhalation of fine particulate (Asbestos, silica..etc)
3. Smoke of any kind.

The first one can kill you almost immediately. The second one will take time but will kill you. The third is dangerous but based on my experience the person's "heartiness" is a factor in whether the smoke will eventually do enough harm to kill.

[DainBramaged]

89. Studies have proven NO ONE has died from smoking weed

and NO ONE who has EXCLUSIVELY smoked weed in his live time has been proven to have died from lung cancer. Second hand cigarette smoke causes cancer.

Regarding "smoke of any kind' pot will be at the bottom of the list for irritants.

[dugaresa]

94. marijuana contains tar and can kill if it is smoked consistently

I think that due in part to the "effects" of marijuana not too many folks smoke it like they do cigarettes.

http://copd.about.com/b/2008/12/08/does-regular-marijuana-smoking-lead-to-copd.htm

Funny thing is that to be a regular marijuana smoker, it would be costly and it would probably severely limit your ability to earn an income to keep up the habit. The only person I ever met who at one time was a big time stoner and smoked it every day ended up in prison because she grew it on her property and her jail time interrupted her habit and was the reason she gave it up.

One "good" side effect of marijuana is its anti-nauseal qualities which is why cancer patients have used it. That good quality becomes a bad one when combined with alcohol in that marijuana will stifle the body's natural desire to expel the alcohol. So in a way marijuana can help kill you by suppressing your bodies functions. There was a death of a student while I was at college due in part to this side effect.

I also want to add, I am not saying that marijuana is evil but it is a drug and drugs when misused can kill.

Personally I am okay with legalizing marijuana but with the same restrictions as alcohol.

[Scout]

96. too funny!

"Funny thing is that to be a regular marijuana smoker, it would be costly and it would probably severely limit your ability to earn an income to keep up the habit."

how wrong you are. i'll stack my anecdote up next to yours any day.

i know several retirees who smoked pretty much daily for the majority of their adult lives, and had no problems whatsoever remaining gainfully employed.

[hexola]

99. Isnt the current pricing only supported by it's illegality?

Yeah - lots of cash changing hands...but the stuff is basically worthless when legal, right?

And all the big dealers - already pay taxes! (gotta show some income for Uncle Sam)

Is this just going to be a "sin tax"?

The picture of legal weed that is emerging these days...not what I had hoped for...

[hexola]

101. Remember, there is propoganda on both sides of this issue...

The whole "no one ever died" is a bit of red-herring...

I dont doubt it...but they use that phrase to promote the whole idea that marijuana is totally harmless...

Whoa...! Yeah, it might not kill you - but it is far from healthy to use...

it affects your metabolism, mood, and wallet in undesirable ways...

And - it IS addictive...

Im for it - but not blindly...nor do I recommend it's use to others.


"yer better off not" is my response to non-smokers...

[Maru Kitteh]

103. +1

[mdmc]

104. kick