they push alcohol, alcohol 24 hours a day, push it down your throat, its the 2nd killer drug in the world. Ive actually seen beer ads during anti drug specials. cigerettes legal, alcohol legal and they kill more people then any other illegal drugs combined times 1000. Pot a drug that kills..... zero... lets put it in a time frame here... EVER. Its against the law, uhh tell me why? You're at a ballgame or concert and someone is really violent and agressive, are they drunk or smokin pot??? Ive never seen anyone on pot get in a fight because its impossible. Say you get in a car accident and youve been smoking pot, you're only going 4mph! sssscreech bam, "**** we hit something. we forgot to open the garage door dude. its ok i forgot we were going in reverse" at least no one got hurt, and the garage door needs to be replaced, BAM a job has been created.

quote:

we can't say a thing about booze without getting shut down?

I was with you right up to here. Have you never heard anti-alcohol campaigns? I mean I have seen drunk driving ads alone ad nausuem. Even in TV shows its common to portray alcohol as harmful.

Pot vs. Beer?
Since when are either of those things acceptable?

Beer, which kills braincells, causes violence, and destroys organs.

Pot, which KILLS our attentions spans, promotes escapism, and makes people useless.

Your question, as I see it, is: "Why does American society promote alcohol, but trash weed?" The answer is simple: history! Alcohol has been a major contributor to basically every nations economy since it's creation. American society cannot trash alcohol(whether they want to or not), because the corporations and the government won't let us. They have so much power, money, and consumers that basically nobody can do anything to stop them.

Weed, on the other hand, is another story altogether. Hemp threatened the big timber companies, which were in power at the time. Of course, it is no worse than alcohol, but the problem is that it was never good for corporations. It's not like the corporations are doing the smashing, but they do control what we, the people, are allowed to smash.

Is alcohol bad? Yes. Is weed bad? Of course. Is it right that we can go on and on about how bad weed is on TV, but we can't say a thing about booze without getting shut down? No, it isn't.

I bet if the U.S. was truly free, we'd definitely see some anti-alcohol commercials. Unfortunately, that day is not here.

quote:

quote:
So after work, if you ask some coworkers if they want to go smoke a joint, they'll respond just as if you asked them if they wanted to go get a couple of brewski's?

yes.

You're seriously trying to tell me this is normal for a decent career focused job (not Taco Bell)?
I would argue with you more on this, but seeing as you didn't answer the other questions the same way, I'm guessing I made my point.

I realize the reasons marijuana was criminalized are debatable and change depending on who you talk to. That doesn't change why it should be illegal now. I presented several scientific articles showing several health concerns with marijuana use backing up my belief that it is in fact harmful. Until those get refuted, my opinion of marijuana being harmful will not change. That's not stubborn, it's being reasonable. I even let myself get side-tracked talking about costs and social implications, but the bottom line is scientific evidence points to it being harmful. If it is harmless, more scientific research will demonstrate this and as it comes out, I'll change my opinion.

quote:

So after work, if you ask some coworkers if they want to go smoke a joint, they'll respond just as if you asked them if they wanted to go get a couple of brewski's?

yes.

The reason why marijuana isn't 'socially acceptable' is the minority of young prudes like you and old people who say it isn't.

Why was marijuana criminalized? Maybe you should find that out.

quote:

Come now, let us reason together

Good idea, let's try to be reasonable.

quote:

1) The cost of prohibition vs. regulation on something so popular and harmless

2) The already widespread use of the prohibitive substance and its social acceptance.

Hmm, where to start being reasonable... I'm not convinced the costs will be lowered by a lot making it regulated instead of prohibited. Nobody has shown me any decent data to support this.
And, in any case, as I have stated several posts before, there have been numerous studies showing its harmful effects. Making something harmful readily available to the public is not a good idea and any laws advocating such will prove net harm to society. Even if there is a slight financial gain, if it harms the people what good is it? The central issue here is the impact on health.


Now then, let's get into something really interesting: Social acceptance. ...Really now, you're going to tell me it's socially acceptable to use marijuana? So after work, if you ask some coworkers if they want to go smoke a joint, they'll respond just as if you asked them if they wanted to go get a couple of brewski's? If you say in a job interview you occasionally use marijuana, they'll treat you the same as though you said you have an occasional glass of wine? When you step out of work for a smoke break, it's socially the same to smoke tobacco and marijuana? If a picture emerged showing Obama smoking marijuana, it would be just as acceptable as showing him with a beer?

No, absolutely not. Marijuana's "widespread" use is limited to primarily younger generation and theater teachers. It's not nearly as big as alcohol, tobacco or caffeine. For a variety of reasons, it's not even close to being socially acceptable. I'm a little surprised somebody would even try to make that claim.

I think something you have to accept Nathan is:

1) The cost of prohibition vs. regulation on something so popular and harmless

2) The already widespread use of the prohibitive substance and its social acceptance.

quote:

Wow, it's called an estimate. It still costs much more to keep it illegal than to decriminalize or legalize it.

I actually have some thoughts on this. 3 to be exact. 1) You could make this claim of any crime. It costs more to enforce laws against murder than it would be to just make it legal. That doesn't make it a good idea.
2) An estimate would be something close to the actual value. Unless there's some other factor I'm not aware of, 75 billion isn't even close. Your response would be more fitting if all I said was "47% of 150 is 70.5, not 75." All the factors I mentioned last post do not seem to be taken into account for this figure. The actual cost of enforcing this law is vastly lower than what you (or what the Time article) is suggesting. That's why I called it a skewed statistic. Sorry if that offends you but that's how a lot of these things are.
3) What you're saying isn't even necessarily true. If it were legalized, there would still be laws regulating its use (age limit, who can sell it, laws similar to alcohol and tobacco) so it's not like costs of enforcing it will mysteriously vanish, or even be cut by a significant amount.

quote:

Ok, see correct me if I'm wrong, but where you are getting saving 75 billion dollars is from the idea that 150 billion is being spent on courts and that 47% (almost half) of the arrests are on marijuana possession

Wow, it's called an estimate. It still costs much more to keep it illegal than to decriminalize or legalize it.

So fail.

quote:

The government would save 75 billion dollars a year if they legalized it. Each year, 150 billion dollars are spent on our court systems. Of those charged, 47% are those arrested on possession of marijuana alone

Ok, see correct me if I'm wrong, but where you are getting saving 75 billion dollars is from the idea that 150 billion is being spent on courts and that 47% (almost half) of the arrests are on marijuana possession. (forgive me if I'm wrong on your figure came from, but since I can't find the source I have to assume.) Your 75 billion thing would be true if a) all arrests costs the same and b) only crimes contributed to court costs.

With a) I'm fairly certain costs of more serious crimes are much higher than marijuana. Many crimes involving possession of marijuana plead guilty and those that don't are relatively short compared to say a rape or murder. Also I'd imagine appeals would be rare (whereas on murders appeals are pretty common).
b)Does this 150 billion dollars account for divorce (which is a huge factor in court cost), traffic violations and other disputes settled in court?

quote:

Marijuana is the largest cash crop in the United States. I'm sorry but it is. Go look it up.

Marijuana sales in California total 1 billion dollars a year. If you disagree with these numbers then go find the real ones.

That seems to be the case (according to the most recent study by Gettman or whatever his name is.) but as I understand it, the subject in this thread is about the health effects of marijuana.

quote:

It doesn't matter what I say because you will not listen.

Because you don't convince me, doesn't mean I'm not listening. Half of my last post was quotes and I responded to most if not all of your points.

quote:

The government would save 75 billion dollars a year if they legalized it. Each year, 150 billion dollars are spent on our court systems. Of those charged, 47% are those arrested on possession of marijuana alone
I'm a little insulted that you're still using skewed statistics on me.
quote:

Really, so what are the real statistics. hmm.

It doesn't matter what I say because you will not listen.

Marijuana is the largest cash crop in the United States. I'm sorry but it is. Go look it up.

Marijuana sales in California total 1 billion dollars a year. If you disagree with these numbers then go find the real ones.

None of this bantering even matters because marijuana will be legalized in our life time.

Well first off :

quote:

Don't be mean to me....

It's hard to tell from the text, but I'm not trying to be mean. I'm sorry if ya felt that way. I'm just blunt. If I thought you were really stupid, I wouldn't bother replying. I'd just write *obscene gesture* and that would be the end of it.

quote:

Cannabais produces no physical dependence.

We are in agreement. However, anyone who tries to quit smoking or drinking will find breaking the psychological addiction is much more difficult.Most physiological addictions will be wiped away long before the urges go do. I think we've beat this part to death though.

quote:

Sure, a person can be psychologically addicted to it, but people can also be addicted to shopping, sex and gambling and alcohol and tobacco, so should we make all of those illegal, as well, since some can have a mental dependence on these activities?

Gambling is illegal in many states because of its addiction (and the Bible ). The ease of getting psychologically addicted to cannabis is much greater than shopping, as is getting clinically addicted to sex. And personally, I'd have no problems with getting rid of alcohol and tobacco. Anyone who has arguments to keep them, however, are not health related and don't apply to legalization of cannabis.

quote:

Well anyways, this chapter said that marijuana is the least phsyically addictive drug.

I'm convinced that if it did, it would qualify that somehow, like saying "the least addictive of these drugs (after a list) or among the least addictive drugs etc.

quote:

little lung sacs

alveoli.

quote:

a person's mental state could suffer harm

There is strong evidence that it impedes development in adolescents. This is more than hurting a mental state. It's also been shown to suppress the immune system (alcohol does this too, but only as an acute effect, not long term.) And people who have markers for serious mental illness (schizo for example) are far more likely to contract the illness by using this drug (as you said alcohol can do the same thing, but the effect isn't as strong as THC). Even in people without markers, there is evidence that long term abuse can lead to minor mental disorders (depression, anxiety etc.).
Oh, and ingestion increases risk of oral problems... so you know, take that for what it's worth?

quote:

here really is not anything there worse than caffeine

As far as I am aware, there is NO long term side effects documented with caffeine use. Nor will it increase likelihood of serious mental illness, no matter what markers you have. Nicotine have not shown to impair one's mental development if used during adolescents. (Although since nicotine is you know, poisonous, I wouldn't say it's much better than cannabis.) I'm not sure why you keep bringing up painkillers. They are not allowed for recreational use and we've already agreed that marijuana used for a proven medical purpose (benefits outweigh the side effects)is all right.

quote:

The government would save 75 billion dollars a year if they legalized it. Each year, 150 billion dollars are spent on our court systems. Of those charged, 47% are those arrested on possession of marijuana alone

I'm a little insulted that you're still using skewed statistics on me.

quote:

If marijuana was legal the government would have less non-violent 'criminals'

This would be true of legalizing jaywalking. That doesn't make it a good idea. I'm using the term criminal even more loosely.

quote:

the police would have more to look for rapists and murderers and people who sell crack to small children.

I can guarantee you that all of these crimes take precedence over marijuana possession. It's not like cops are like "Hmm well we can either catch the Green Hill Killer or we can get John Smith, a teenager who has done nothing wrong except hold his friend's pot for five minutes." "Time to take Johnny down!" What prevents law enforcement from catching rapists etc. has more to do with evidence than with marijuana.

quote:

All this is from an issue of Time

Hmm the same magazine that falsely announced scientist discovered the gay gene? When I'm referring to an article, I mean like one from pubmed or Cell Biology or something. Not something that's been polluted by journalism.

quote:

red wine would be all right to drink

Ah the "red wine saves hearts" article... was that made by Time as well?

quote:

Even though I'm sure I've mentioned, I'll go ahead and say it again: That is simply not a true statement. While it shows little signs of being physiologically addictive, it can cause psychological addiction, more so than other drugs like ecstasy. And also, when you're saying "least addictive drug" are you referring to all drugs ever or illicit drugs? I'll grant that it is relatively less addictive than most drugs out there, but not the least addictive in existence.

Cannabais produces no physical dependence. Sure, a person can be psychologically addicted to it, but people can also be addicted to shopping, sex and gambling and alcohol and tobacco, so should we make all of those illegal, as well, since some can have a mental dependence on these activities?

In my book 'Social Problems' from my sociology course (and note that the book's copyright is 2008) there was a fairly basic history of the most used drugs in America. The usuals were there, including marijuana. Well anyways, this chapter said that marijuana is the least phsyically addictive drug. Caffeine, nicotine and alcohol are more addictive, yet they are accepted by society and perfectly legal to use. (with some age restrictions)

Obviously it's a plant and not a drug. However, if we synthesized THC, I would call it a drug.

Please explain how hash oil can harm a person. The only way marijuana has a negative impact on health is when it is smoked. There are 35 carginogens in it and this number is not due to anything about the plant, but to the fact that lungs do not do well with burnt ash being moved through out the little lung sacs. Can't remember what they're called, oh well. When weed is injested it does not physically harm the body in any way. However, a person's mental state could suffer harm, but this rarely happens and when it does it is when someone already had a predispostion to the disorder. Alcohol can also bring out these disorders as well as Salvia Divinorum, but they are legal...


But the thing is, there have been numerous studies on marijuana and there really is not anything there worse than alcohol or salvia or nictotine or caffeine or the painkillers we get be prescribed. Plus marijuana could be used for other things besides smoking. We could use it to make paper, cloth, rope, etc and it would be a quickly reusable source. Also, The government would save 75 billion dollars a year if they legalized it. Each year, 150 billion dollars are spent on our court systems. Of those charged, 47% are those arrested on possession of marijuana alone (notice no violent crimes come from people who are high, unlike those who are drunk; this is not to say that the illegality of marijuana does not create violence, it does with gangs, but people do not become aggressor while stoned). This is roughly half of all in our legal systems. If marijuana was legal the government would have less non-violent 'criminals' (I use the term 'criminal loosely) clogging its courts and the police would have more to look for rapists and murderers and people who sell crack to small children. Not only would it save the US money, it would also generate an income of about 14 billion dollars a year. All this is from an issue of Time by the way, I think a March issue, well I'll find it later in case any are wondering where I got my numbers...

Alcohol isn't that bad if you have like a glass a week and you don't go crazy with it. I think red wine would be all right to drink but not that hard over-proof liquor or vodka, bleh. But then again I don't drink.

Don't be mean to me....

My goodness, it's been a while since I've shown up around here eh?

All right, even though it's unlikely you'll read this I'll go ahead and post.

quote:

Weed however is the least addictive drug out there.

Even though I'm sure I've mentioned, I'll go ahead and say it again: That is simply not a true statement. While it shows little signs of being physiologically addictive, it can cause psychological addiction, more so than other drugs like ecstasy. And also, when you're saying "least addictive drug" are you referring to all drugs ever or illicit drugs? I'll grant that it is relatively less addictive than most drugs out there, but not the least addictive in existence.

quote:

why you mispelled vicodin

To be technical, Vicodin is just a brand name. If I really wanted to study its effects, I would look at the chemicals that make it up,mainly hyrdocordone and probably some other stuff I don't wanna look up. Also you misspelled misspelled. So there...

quote:

I have experimented, studied and researched drugs obsessively for the past 3 years. Especially marijuana.

Experimented? I'm pretty sure you have

Also once again getting technical, marijuana isn't technically a drug. It's a plant. The drug part of it is usually considered to be Cannabis. And along with that...

quote:

hing that has no negative side effects when it is in an oil form?

Not a proven statement. I had a long explanation to go with this, but I decided to say screw it and leave it at that.

quote:

Scientists are starting to believe that our minds naturally producing thc. So why not smoke it?

I'm sure you know the bad logic here. Your body also naturally produces hormones (like estrogen, or growth hormones.) but of course, injecting these into you throws off your body's chemical balance and can really screw things up.

quote:

Just like with drinking, why not drink? As long as you aren't doing it before you drive and you're not doing it everyday, is it a problem?

Actually yes it can. Consuming enough ethanol will kill you.Doing so over time will cause liver scarring.

quote:

never snort vicodin.

Sage advice.

Yeah, okay, how the hell are they going to see if you ever used illicit drugs, lol. The hair test is the most intrusive and that can all tell what you've done in the past 90 days.

Duh, weed can have bad effects if that's all you care about, but so can alcohol, hence the alcoholic.

Weed however is the least addictive drug out there. Even less addictive than caffiene. Shouldn't you know this?

Yeah, you plan on pursuing your degree, so that means you haven't studied what I am talking about (yet) which could explain why you mispelled vicodin. ^.^

I have experimented, studied and researched drugs obsessively for the past 3 years. Especially marijuana.

Medicinal use obviously should be allowed by the federal law. They pop oxys and vics down people's throats so why not use something that has no negative side effects when it is in an oil form? The only thing that can affect your health with weed is the fact that you are smoking something. It's the smoke itself, not what is in the plant. Our brains have thc receptors, as do cats (diddles) and a few other animals. Scientists are starting to believe that our minds naturally producing thc. So why not smoke it? Just like with drinking, why not drink? As long as you aren't doing it before you drive and you're not doing it everyday, is it a problem?

lol, you must have not taken enough vicodin. To feel fucked up from it you got to take like at least 4 of the 750's at once, silly. and never snort vicodin.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but it seems like what the argument is about is legalizing marijuana for recreational use, rather than medical. Several states have already legalize marijuana as a proscription drug (mainly as a mild pain reliever or glaucoma treatment as I understand it.)
If you are arguing for recreational use, then note that all the drugs you mentioned (except alcohol) are not legal for anything other than medical use. In states where medicinal marijuana is permitted, marijuana is just as legal as those drugs.
Here's a chart that seems to be very popular. ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...mean_dependence).svg ) Just look along the vertical to see how relatively addictive a drug is (I think it's measuring how likely it is to develop a psychological dependence to the drug, since many of these, cannabis included, are not physiologically addictive.)

quote:

please note you are talking to someone who is obsessed with drugs and their effects.

duly noted . I suppose I should also mention that I plan on pursuing a PhD in toxicology with the hopes of going into forensic toxicology which directly deals with the affects of drugs on the body system. (Granted I'm not there yet, but it is something of an interest of mine and I at least know enough to look at a study and understand what is going on.)

quote:

Do you smoke? or have you ever?

No in any sense of the word. I've never had alcohol, tobacco or any illicit drugs. (Although, I was prescribed vicadin after a foot surgery once. Not as good as Dr. House would have you think.) One of the things about going into forensic toxicology is that many states (at least all the ones that I'm aware of) won't hire you as a criminalist if you've ever used any illicit drug (Guess it's to make sure the "evidence" doesn't turn up light.)

As kind of an overall point: keep in mind that just because something isn't addictive, doesn't mean it doesn't have ill effects.

Well duh an undergrad isn't going to able to legally obtain crack to do research on it. That's not what we were discussing though. You said, point blank, its hard research these things because they are illegal. The governement has groups of scientists studying drugs all the time, obviously some random college student isn't going to be approved for that. duh.

Fucking alcohol, oxycontin, vicadin, promenthazeyne, codeine and valium are a hell of a lot more addictive than weed but they are legal and used in our hospitals.

Even though it has been shown that marijuana use helps those under-going chemo to gain weight which is very difficult to do.

But nope, any medicinal qualities weed could have must be ignored because it is a horrible drug that is destroying our nation.

What illicit drugs are less addictive than marijuana?

it is PHYSICALLY the least addictive drug out of all drugs that will harm you.

please note you are talking to someone who is obsessed with drugs and their affects.

Do you smoke? or have you ever?

I can tell you that I know there is a lot of research done on the effects of cannabis, one of my chemistry professors studied it extensively during graduate school. Type in cannabis or THC in pubmed and you'll get tons of hits.
Geez the whole reason I brought it up was to point out some other post that mentioned many studies have a lack of studying people who only smoke marijuana.
If you want to study the effects of alcohol, it is fairly simple. Bring in some subjects, give them some booze and document what happens. With marijuana, you can't go about it the same way without going through a lot of red tape. A simple direct study with cannabis is pretty complicated.
But to be honest, this point isn't really all that important. Kinda venting because I wanted to study toxicology in the lab and am finding it's impossible for an undergrad to get close to anything that's illegal... understandable but frustrating.

As far as psychological addictions go, what you said it true. What you did not say that is also true is that different substances have varying degrees of forming psychological dependence. That is to say, it is easier to become psychologically addicted to, let's say marijuana than jogging. Or as I said earlier, marijuana to LSD. Saying it's the least addictive drug without any qualifiers seems like a weird thing for a text book to say, because even pushing LSD and illicit drugs aside, there is no way penicillin based antibiotics (which are of course drugs) are more addictive than anything found in marijuana.
Calling it the least addictive illegal drug or controlled substance would at least have a chance at being true, though like I said, several illicit drugs have been shown to be less psychologically addictive than marijuana so even that isn't true (or at best is debatable.)

No you just said because it's illegal it's hard to research it. Scientists have done thousands of studies on how drugs affect the body. Maybe you just can't find them.

LSD is not physically addictive nor is marijuana but there are people who become psychologically dependent on it. However you can become psychologically dependent on anything from eating food to jogging.

This they I'm talking about is my book for my Social Problems class. And every other book on drugs that I have read.

quote:

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean they haven't done extensive studies on it

I know, that's why I said

quote:

Here are some random facts gathered from published research

My point is some people are trying to nullify data by the fact the sample size is so small. I'm pointing out it's hard to get a large sample size in this country is all.

quote:

They've proven that the least addictive drug (even less so than caffiene) is marijuana

Who's this mysterious they and how do they prove addiction? It's very fascinating and you should consider sending it into the British Medical Journal seeing as they rank Cannabis as more addictive than LSD, ecstasy, and anabolic steroids. This would disqualify marijuana as the least addictive drug.