Legalized Marijuana -- The way is clear

[ERCougar]

As long as we are talking about assumptions, it would be equally fallacious to assume that marijuana smoke is equal to or more harmful than tobacco smoke, from a cardiovascular or carcinogenic standpoint. Some smokes are worse than others. So, Dr., what is the Link?

I'll steal yours...

In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increases the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke.

Sure, it's theoretical, but marijuana's illegal. Legalize it, and we'll have plenty of material for good studies.

I said earlier that the one thing marijuana has going for it is that it's fairly hard to function in life while high, i.e. tough to smoke 2 packs a day. Did you read the rest of your link, i.e. the links to schizophrenia, depression, suicidal ideation? The general decrease in life functioning associated with use? The heightened risk of frequent pulmonary infections? The withdrawal symptoms (from a "non-addictive" drug) that users suffer?

You're acting like this is some wonder drug when in its smoked form, it wouldn't make it to a Phase I trial.

[il Padrino Ute]

Why is it that the only people I ever hear talking about how pot doesn't hurt anyone are habitual users?

[Hallelujah]

It's time to legalize it. The pharmacuetical lobby is going to go nuts. The drug makers can't afford a cheap, relatively safe, non-addictive herb to replace their toxic chemicals.

Non-addictive herb? Legalize marijuana, then the drug problem goes away?

Are you enjoying a bong as we speak? Or you made this crap up all on our own?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Non-addictive herb? Legalize marijuana, then the drug problem goes away?

Are you enjoying a bong as we speak? Or you made this crap up all on our own?

Now simple feet that flicker like fire
And burn like candles in smoky spires
Do more to turn my joy to sadness
Than somber thoughts of burning planets.

Now clever feet that flicker like fire
And burn like candles in smoky spires
Do more to turn my joy to sadness
Than somber thoughts of burning planets.

[Hallelujah]

Why is it that the only people I ever hear talking about how pot doesn't hurt anyone are habitual users?

Ask the kids who are born to alcoholic or druggie mothers. Let's just f' them up from day one and then wonder why they can't learn or have behavioral problems their entire life. I agree with you, that camp has their heads up their bong.

[BlueHair]

Non-addictive herb? Legalize marijuana, then the drug problem goes away?

Are you enjoying a bong as we speak? Or you made this crap up all on our own?

Dude, Forrest Gump is a genius compared to you. Where did I say that the drug problem would go away if we legalize marijuana?

Marijuana should be legal. Even if it didn't benefit the user I would say it should be legal. A person should be able to drink or smoke or inject anything they want into their bodies so long as they aren't directly harming someone else. A person owns their body, it is not property of the government. Obviously, there needs to be laws against driving and other dangerous activities while intoxicated.

Prescription drugs are much more dangerous than marijuana. Just watch any advertisements for drugs on tv. The side effects are worse than the illness.

[RobinFinderson]

I'll steal yours...



Sure, it's theoretical, but marijuana's illegal. Legalize it, and we'll have plenty of material for good studies.

I said earlier that the one thing marijuana has going for it is that it's fairly hard to function in life while high, i.e. tough to smoke 2 packs a day. Did you read the rest of your link, i.e. the links to schizophrenia, depression, suicidal ideation? The general decrease in life functioning associated with use? The heightened risk of frequent pulmonary infections? The withdrawal symptoms (from a "non-addictive" drug) that users suffer?

You're acting like this is some wonder drug when in its smoked form, it wouldn't make it to a Phase I trial.

Let me start out by making a simple observation -- most of the known health risks of smoking marijuana are the result of smoking marijuana. There are other simple ways of ingesting marijuana that do not involve inhaling a burning plant. Three such ingestion techniques that are easy to use are: using a vaporizer, using marijuana in baked goods, and tinctures of marijuana. Pot-heads are going to be more prone to using these techniques, because they will use the substance often enough that they want to mitigate the harmful effects of inhaling a burning plant.

NEVERTHELESS, it would be disingenuous to pretend that the effects of smoking should be ignored, because smoking is the primary way that most people enjoy marijuana. There may come a time in the near future when legalization brings about a change to that custom, and people will consider smoking to be a strange as failing to wear a seat belt. I'm willing to discuss the health issues of smoking because, for now, that is a fair thing to consider. But the opposition doesn't play fair. They cherry pick facts and exaggerate their significance. That is fine in an adversarial situation, but it doesn't get us any closer to the truth. For example, NIDA claims that, "marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke." A reasonable person might then assume that marijuana is more likely to cause cancer, but NIDA then goes on to write, "however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers." So apparently marijuana has more of certain cancerous chemicals, but just not enough of them to significantly raise the chances of getting cancer? Maybe standing near a campfire has the same health risk as smoking a joint. I wonder how much cancerous hydrocarbons can be found in a burning log. So pardon me if those kinds of 'facts' set off some 'teenager calling BS on old farts' alarms.

I don't mean to argue that smoking marijuana has zero health risks. It is still breathing smoke, after all. But tobacco products are uniquely cancerous. It doesn't matter if you smoke them or stuff your lip full of them. Tobacco causes cancer. So far the health problems associated with breathing marijuana smoke look like the health problems associated with breathing any smoke.

The associations with schizophrenia, depression, and suicidal ideation may be completely unrelated. Furthermore, the studies that make any associations to the conditions are notably absent (notable because many of the studies ARE footnoted). NIDA goes on to point out that no one has any scientifically supported idea whether weed has any causal relationship to any of those health problems. I wonder who were the test subjects. I'll bet there is a reason the studies that come closest to suggesting a link here are completely unlisted.

As for the connection to heart attacks, the problem has to do with how weed temporarily raises blood pressure and heart rate. But NIDA makes it sound like weed is in the same category as meth and cocaine in the way that it does this, which just isn't true. Besides, moderate exercise also raises blood pressure and heart rate, and people have heart attacks all the time from physical exertion. Marijuana is more like exercise than cocaine in the sense that any person with a healthy heart can easily cope with the temporary effects of weed.

[ERCougar]

Let me start out by making a simple observation -- most of the known health risks of smoking marijuana are the result of smoking marijuana. There are other simple ways of ingesting marijuana that do not involve inhaling a burning plant. Three such ingestion techniques that are easy to use are: using a vaporizer, using marijuana in baked goods, and tinctures of marijuana. Pot-heads are going to be more prone to using these techniques, because they will use the substance often enough that they want to mitigate the harmful effects of inhaling a burning plant.

NEVERTHELESS, it would be disingenuous to pretend that the effects of smoking should be ignored, because smoking is the primary way that most people enjoy marijuana. There may come a time in the near future when legalization brings about a change to that custom, and people will consider smoking to be a strange as failing to wear a seat belt. I'm willing to discuss the health issues of smoking because, for now, that is a fair thing to consider. But the opposition doesn't play fair. They cherry pick facts and exaggerate their significance. That is fine in an adversarial situation, but it doesn't get us any closer to the truth. For example, NIDA claims that, "marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke." A reasonable person might then assume that marijuana is more likely to cause cancer, but NIDA then goes on to write, "however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers." So apparently marijuana has more of certain cancerous chemicals, but just not enough of them to significantly raise the chances of getting cancer? Maybe standing near a campfire has the same health risk as smoking a joint. I wonder how much cancerous hydrocarbons can be found in a burning log. So pardon me if those kinds of 'facts' set off some 'teenager calling BS on old farts' alarms.

I don't mean to argue that smoking marijuana has zero health risks. It is still breathing smoke, after all. But tobacco products are uniquely cancerous. It doesn't matter if you smoke them or stuff your lip full of them. Tobacco causes cancer. So far the health problems associated with breathing marijuana smoke look like the health problems associated with breathing any smoke.

The associations with schizophrenia, depression, and suicidal ideation may be completely unrelated. Furthermore, the studies that make any associations to the conditions are notably absent (notable because many of the studies ARE footnoted). NIDA goes on to point out that no one has any scientifically supported idea whether weed has any causal relationship to any of those health problems. I wonder who were the test subjects. I'll bet there is a reason the studies that come closest to suggesting a link here are completely unlisted.

As for the connection to heart attacks, the problem has to do with how weed temporarily raises blood pressure and heart rate. But NIDA makes it sound like weed is in the same category as meth and cocaine in the way that it does this, which just isn't true. Besides, moderate exercise also raises blood pressure and heart rate, and people have heart attacks all the time from physical exertion. Marijuana is more like exercise than cocaine in the sense that any person with a healthy heart can easily cope with the temporary effects of weed.

Do you know how difficult it is to prove cancer risk in humans? You're talking an enormously long timeframe, and likely a long use history. As you can imagine, it's fairly difficult to find any significant population that has regularly smoked an illegal drug for 30+ years. Legalize it, and I guarantee the studies will come right up out of the woodwork. This will already likely happen as its use has become much more socially acceptable.

I'm curious--are you this nitpicky in your assessment of air-quality risks? "Has Geneva Steel ever directly caused the death of anyone? No??? Fire away, Joe Cannon!"

I agree that the smoking vehicle of delivery is the key, but it's already legal in all states to take the THC pill and no one's very excited about that . Tobacco is NOT uniquely carcinogenic. If you eat tobacco brownies, you will not get oral, throat, stomach, or lung cancer. The reason chew causes oral cancer is that you have something basting in its juices for extended periods of time. Same reason there is increased gastric cancer in those who eat excess pickled foods--pickling agents mutate cells. If people "chewed" marijuana in the same way, there is no doubt in my mind that it would cause oral cancers.

I'll get to the rest later--I'm going to bed.

[RobinFinderson]

I'm curious--are you this nitpicky in your assessment of air-quality risks? "Has Geneva Steel ever directly caused the death of anyone? No??? Fire away, Joe Cannon!"

The difference is the choice. When Geneva pollutes, the pregnant women can't opt to breath different air.

I agree that the smoking vehicle of delivery is the key, but it's already legal in all states to take the THC pill and no one's very excited about that.

Marijuana users like the idea of growing their own medicine rather than being financially dependent on more big pharma.

Tobacco is NOT uniquely carcinogenic.

Then why don't long term tokers get lung cancer just as often? (btw, there are TONS of 30Year+ tokers out there, certainly enough to conduct a study, especially if you promise to provide high grade green and lots of pastry).

If you eat tobacco brownies, you will not get oral, throat, stomach, or lung cancer.

Tobacco brownies?? Shut up! You know the tobacco companies are going to catch wind of that idea, and the world will only have you to blame.

I'll get to the rest later--I'm going to bed.

You are a good sport.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Texas moving to become the fifth state to make pot legal. Wow.

http://houston.cbslocal.com/2015/05/...edented-move/#

A proposal which would make Texas the fifth state in the U.S. to legalize recreational marijuana use was approved in a bipartisan House panel vote – with the bill’s author citing his Christian values as cause for his support.

...

The deeply conservative, Tea Party-backed Simpson explained in an op-ed last month that his belief in God, distrust of government and criticism of the “War on Drugs” led him to sponsor the marijuana legalization bill.

“As a Christian, I recognize the innate goodness of everything God made and humanity’s charge to be stewards of the same,” wrote Simpson. “I don’t believe that when God made marijuana he made a mistake that government needs to fix.”

Simpson was joined by fellow Republican Todd Hunter of Corpus Christi in support of House Bill 2165. Committee chairman Abel Herrero of Robstown was joined by fellow Democratic lawmakers Joe Moody of El Paso and Terry Canales of Edinburg in favor of marijuana legalization.

[Flystripper]

Texas moving to become the fifth state to make pot legal. Wow.

http://houston.cbslocal.com/2015/05/...edented-move/#

awesome

[PaloAltoCougar]

“As a Christian, I recognize the innate goodness of everything God made and humanity’s charge to be stewards of the same,” wrote Simpson. “I don’t believe that when God made marijuana he made a mistake that government needs to fix.”

This may be a dangerous rationale for an evangelical to espouse (e.g., the Almighty did, in fact, at some point create Adam and Steve). I could come up with a lot of things that occur naturally that I'd expect government, or at least individuals, to try and fix. But I'm fine with Adam and Steve atop a cake, and I'm cool with adding cannabis to the list of helpful herbs cited in Section 89.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The very best argument for legalization is the disaster that is the War on Drugs. Stop the madness.

[OceanBlue]

I've never heard a good reason for locking someone up for having pot.
It should be legal and taxed. Treat it like booze.

[Copelius]

I've never heard a good reason for locking someone up for having pot.
It should be legal and taxed. Treat it like booze.

Based on my experience in criminal law, if you had to make one illegal, it should be booze not pot. I've never seen a DV case where the assailant was high on pot but a majority of the assailants I've see had some booze in them. If I could do a 1 for 1 swap of pot and booze with regard to regulation, legality and taxation, I wouldn't hesitate. I am not saying bring back prohibition in exchange for pot, I am just saying if you have to choose between the two pot is the lesser of evils.