The Cannabis Debate

[DrummerKidJack]

I have voted no, because it is a starters drug, meaning it can happen that you first consume cannabis and then convert to harder drugs, e.g. Meth or extasy or something else.

My cousin started out with cannabis years ago when he was 14 years old. Sadly he died last year due to a bad extasy pill.

That is one reason why I never do any drugs.

The argument of cannabis is a gateway drug is completely invalid. Something to consider: those who have easy access to cannabis are more likely to smoke it than those who do not. In turn, if you have easy access to cannabis, you are also more likely to have access to harder drugs as well, which also increases your chances of using those drugs as well.

 

Saying "drug addicts start off smoking marijuana before moving on to heroin, so therefore it's a gateway drug and should be illegal" is like saying "the Columbine Killers played violent video games before moving on to actual murder, so therefore violent games cause murder and should be illegal". Hell, statistically, most people start drinking alcohol before smoking cannabis, so is alcohol a gateway drug too? Correlation and causation are not the same thing. The third factor (among many others) that is a strong part in both smoking cannabis and doing harder drugs is the environment and your own disposition. Not cannabis itself.

 

Just because someone smokes cannabis doesn't mean they are more likely to move on to harder drugs; it's simply that if you are in an environment in which drugs are plentiful, you're far more likely to use any drugs, not just cannabis. 

 

My condolences regarding your cousin; nobody should be smoking pot at that age, and ecstasy can really fuck you up if you have someone who makes it incorrectly.

[Rathlord]

DrummerKidJack I don't feel that's entirely accurate. If friends introduce pot to others, and then others enjoy it and decide to go to a dealer for more there's a good chance they could get offered "harder" drugs they otherwise wouldn't have had access to or even potentially interest in.

 

I've seen it happen with people I know: they smoke with their friends, decide to buy their own, get offered an awesome deal on shrooms, X, or prescription drugs, and it spirals from there. So while it's not necessarily a given that pot use leads to harder drugs, saying it's completely unrelated is pretty inaccurate in my humble opinion (and in my real life experiences).

[kinyoshi]

It is legalized in the state in live in. I am an Army Veteran with injured (both) knees since 2003. Medicinal....

 

I don't drink alcohol or do pills or any other kind of drug. I also take extra Vitamin D, Calcium, Zinc and Magnesium. Krill Oil too and Occuvite 55+..

 

Marijuana > Alcohol

 

Alcohol is to stupid as marijuana is to relax.

[Aricane]

If other drugs become more appealing after intake of marijuana it can almost only be because you're already on the wrong side of the law. From what I've heard, it's very, very different from harder drugs, just like alchohol influence is very different from speed and cocain.

[EnigmaGrey]

If other drugs become more appealing after intake of marijuana it can almost only be because you're already on the wrong side of the law. From what I've heard, it's very, very different from harder drugs, just like alchohol influence is very different from speed and cocain.

Or you're predisposed to addictive substances.

Damn your manipulative jeans.

[kinyoshi]

You know, I can solve the hard drug being a choice dilemma, cut out the middle man, literally...

 

Just make laws to make it legal (have dead or alive bounties) to murder people who are in any part of the supply chain.  Except users, keep them, off the dealers and the rest of the supply chain.

 

Only pot would be okay..

 

Problem solved.

 

Edit: If I could do that, I would make quite a bit of cash.... I know of some area meth, coke and crack dealers. I live in what would be considered a red light district of the city I live in..

Edited August 10, 2013 by kinyoshi

[DrummerKidJack]

DrummerKidJack I don't feel that's entirely accurate. If friends introduce pot to others, and then others enjoy it and decide to go to a dealer for more there's a good chance they could get offered "harder" drugs they otherwise wouldn't have had access to or even potentially interest in.

 

I've seen it happen with people I know: they smoke with their friends, decide to buy their own, get offered an awesome deal on shrooms, X, or prescription drugs, and it spirals from there. So while it's not necessarily a given that pot use leads to harder drugs, saying it's completely unrelated is pretty inaccurate in my humble opinion (and in my real life experiences).

But that's not to do with the actual drug itself. It's the environment and the people that are created by the illegality of the drug. Were pot to be legal, and you didn't need to go to a dealer to get it, then you wouldn't be offered those harder drugs because you'd be going to a dispensary instead, where you wouldn't be able to get a hold of harder stuff.

 

The very illegality of cannabis causes it to become a "gateway drug". Its label as a gateway drug is then used to keep it illegal. It's circular. People have to go to a dealer in order to get their pot, so they are exposed to an environment in which the harder drugs are more available. It's nothing to do with marijuana itself. If you had to buy alcohol from a dealer as well, it would result in exactly the same thing. 

 

EDIT: To clarify; the act of smoking cannabis does not cause you to start taking harder drugs. The act of having to buy it from a shady bloke who then offers you harder stuff does.

[Marinus]

Reality is clearly liberally biased when it concerns decriminalization/ legalization of drugs, and indeed the social experiments done in Europe, (among others in Portugal, Denmark, Switzerland and the Netherlands indicate that decriminalization/legalization of drugs does not result in an increase in drug use but does stop a lot of problems associated with drug use. 

 

Also: "Gateway Drug" belongs on the same pile as "Reefer Madness" and all the other anti-drug scaremongering tactics. 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448346/

[Swagger]

Providing its taxed the same as cigarettes and alcohol,  the proper licencing and regulation rules and procedures and subjected to the same laws then I am fine with it being legalized.

[Chippy]

Just saying, here in GB, anyone can own up to 5 cannabis plants, but they may only use the cannabis for personal use, or social use, however it may not be traded for services, favors or any objects. Also in the GB we have a particular problem with people using drugs, because if that drug causes damage to the person, they may seek help from the NHS (our national health service, it provides free healthcare for all GB citizens.)

So many of us see it as an investment to stop the people in question, from getting to the stage where they need healthcare.

[MalletFace]

There are very likely medical uses for two or three cannabinoids in marijuana, but most of the other things in it are carcinogens, and other harmful substances. Those two or three cannabinoids may help with epilepsy, social disorders, and some other things when used in safe amounts, but isolating them from the harmful substances is no easy task.

 

Smoking marijuana of any kind has the same risks as smoking tobacco; Cancer, bronchitis, heart problems, and a myriad of other ailments.

 

I don't think it should be fully legalized, but if medical organizations found a safe way to isolate and use those cannabinoids, and clinically prove their medical uses, I think it should be used for the production of pharmaceutical drugs. I feel the same way towards almost all other harmful drugs with possible medical uses.

 

The only drugs I think should be used for recreation are caffeine and alcohol, in reasonable amounts. 

Alcohol prohibition has been attempted in several western countries, but it has never succeeded in helping any. You are able to avoid most of its health risks if you moderate use, too, which most people are able to do.

The main way people are permanently harmed or killed by caffeine is overdosing through use of pure caffeine in the form of tablets, or overdosing through drinking an excess of energy drinks. Neither one is intended for recreational use. To get a lethal dose of caffeine from drinking coffee or regular soda is almost impossible.

Edited August 10, 2013 by MalletFace

[Marinus]

Also in the GB we have a particular problem with people using drugs, because if that drug causes damage to the person, they may seek help from the NHS (our national health service, it provides free healthcare for all GB citizens.)

So many of us see it as an investment to stop the people in question, from getting to the stage where they need healthcare.

 

 

You won't stop people from using it, unless you resort to draconian measures like the death penalty. It's more pragmatic to legalize it, tax it, and use the taxes to pay for negative consequences of their drug use. 

[Marinus]

Smoking marijuana of any kind has the same risks as smoking tobacco; Cancer, bronchitis, heart problems, and a myriad of other ailments.

 

This is true, but where a typical smoker inhales 20 grams of plant matter per day or so, a typical pot smoker will inhale far less than that. There's not research that suggests that smoking a couple of joints a week will harm your health

 

The only drugs I think should be used for recreation are caffeine and alcohol, in reasonable amounts. 

 

Alcohol is one of the more dangerous drugs and unlike weed a (delicious) scourge to society.

 

Alcohol prohibition has been attempted in several western countries, but it has never succeeded in helping any. You are able to avoid most of its health risks if you moderate use, too, which most people are able to do.

 

This is even more true for pot.

[Tweek]

Its just a plant unlike most other drugs. i got some in my backyard

[MalletFace]

 

Smoking marijuana of any kind has the same risks as smoking tobacco; Cancer, bronchitis, heart problems, and a myriad of other ailments.

 

This is true, but where a typical smoker inhales 20 grams of plant matter per day or so, a typical pot smoker will inhale far less than that. There's not research that suggests that smoking a couple of joints a week will harm your health

 

The only drugs I think should be used for recreation are caffeine and alcohol, in reasonable amounts. 

 

Alcohol is one of the more dangerous drugs and unlike weed a (delicious) scourge to society.

 

Alcohol prohibition has been attempted in several western countries, but it has never succeeded in helping any. You are able to avoid most of its health risks if you moderate use, too, which most people are able to do.

 

This is even more true for pot.

 

 

The amount of carcinogens in marijuana depends on which part of the plant you use. There are parts of the plant with 70-100% more carcinogenic chemicals in it than tobacco, and contain very low amounts of THC. (THC is likely to inhibit carcinogens). There are also parts with equal or lesser quantities of carcinogens compared to tobacco, and moderate amounts of THC. What also should be noted, is that all toxins are toxic based on exposure and potency. Most carcinogens in both tobacco and marijuana are not too potent, but there are a few in both that are very potent. Most carcinogens also take decades between when they start to effect a person, and when cancer shows up.

 

Drinking alcohol affects the body differently than smoking marijuana and tobacco. 

 

Alcohol damages the body mainly because you drink more than your liver can process. The liver is very important to body function, but very resilient, and can stand up to even severe damage from alcoholics for years, and when a person drinks an amount their liver can handle, almost no damage is accrued.

 

Marijuana and tobacco are normally taken orally through inhalation, and will go directly to the lungs, and will enter the blood very quickly. The lungs can and normally will be damaged when any abnormal substance enters them, as they aren't meant to deal with large particles. The carcinogens in either substance are likely to affect the body while in the lungs. This is where the two products act differently. Nicotine in tobacco changes how the heart, muscles, and brain behave (All potentially deadly). The THC and CBD in marijuana do most of their work in the brain. None of the direct affects are lethal, but THC and CBD by themselves are both deadly in relatively small doses when they enter the blood.

 

Most medicinal marijuana growers and producers of THC pills make the mistake of thinking THC is fine to isolate since it is the cannabiniod that helps more, but CBD has been proven to counteract the deadly affects of THC, and it has been proven that THC counteracts the deadly affects of CBD. Neither one helps deal with the carcinogens, and other cannabinoids, but the fact that growers isolate THC makes THC poisoning more likely. This isn't saying that the two cannabinoids shouldn't be used medicinally, just that they shouldn't be used by themselves, or with the other chemicals present in marijuana. There is no way a grower can get just these two chemicals in precise amounts. Just burning the leaves of most plants will produce enough carcinogens to be deadly, so smoking anything at all is just not wise, and I am in no way ever going to support the smoking of any plant.

 

That said, there is no way you can moderate marijuana or tobacco to keep yourself healthy. The carcinogens and other chemicals will damage your body, no matter what, every time you use them, raising your risk for infections. You could potentially get cancer from one use of either substance, too. 

 

I didn't want to sound mean or rude in any way, and I spent two hours writing this to try to avoid offending you. If I did, please inform me. My goal is never to offend, but it is always to learn, teach, and discuss.

 

Its just a plant unlike most other drugs. i got some in my backyard

 

Most drugs, medical and recreational, were derived from plants or bacteria, and synthetics were made to make them safer. Smoking, ingesting, or injecting almost any plant or bacteria that can alter the body is dangerous, and burning it only creates carcinogens.

 

I do think most plants are beautiful, though, and the uniformity of cannabis is amazing to me. If I lived somewhere it grows naturally, I would most certainly not remove it, risking damage to the ecosystem, and damage to the aesthetics of the area.

[Rathlord]

Thanks for the well thought out and informative post mallet.

To shorten the point for those of you TL;DR fans out there :

TL;DR Pots effect on the body is cumulative in any amount whereas alcohol's effects don't add up unless it is used consistently in abusive amounts.

[MalletFace]

Thanks for the well thought out and informative post mallet.

To shorten the point for those of you TL;DR fans out there :

TL;DR Pots effect on the body is cumulative in any amount whereas alcohol's effects don't add up unless it is used consistently in abusive amounts.

 

I do tend to write long and very drawn out posts, with some rambling thrown in, even when I don't mean to. I don't, however, regret being a nerd.

[DrummerKidJack]

That was really interesting MalletFace, cheers. I do kinda doubt the last assertion of being able to get cancer from one use of marijuana/tobacco, however. I'm sure there is the potential of it happening, but the chances are so low that they become negligible. I have no evidence to back that up, but it just seems unlikely that one toke or one cigarette could give you something as serious as cancer.

 

The thing is, the health benefits and carcinogenic nature of actual marijuana (rather than the chemicals that it contains) is still very much in debate. The British Lung Foundation lists marijuana smoke as a carcinogen, but at the same time a 2006 study by Hashibe et al. found no link between heavy marijuana use and lung cancer. It's a controversial topic, in the very basic sense of the word; nobody quite knows which one is correct. There are hundreds of studies on both sides that prove and disprove the deadliness of cannabis. There also comes with that the argument of whether just because something is harmful, that it should be illegal.

 

It's a tough question, but if you ignore the controversial stuff (which we really should, because it just ends up with "This study proves..." "well, this study proves..." "but this study proves...") and just focus on logic, it seems obvious to me that marijuana should be legalized: similar substances like tobacco are legal. Lots of people want cannabis and have to deal with shady folks to get it. Prohibition has been shown not to work for something highly desirable, and in fact just creates an environment in which criminal elements can profit. The organized crime problem in America would probably not be nearly as huge if alcohol prohibition hadn't existed. It results in the incarceration of people who are really no threat to themselves or society (the average user, that is).

 

The illegality of marijuana creates more issues than it cures.

[MalletFace]

That's exactly why I didn't vote no. At first I had voted that it should just because of the issues, but that made me feel hypocritical. I removed my vote completely when I added my opinion on all drugs, saying only alcohol and caffeine should be used for recreation in moderation.

 

On the cancer point, I find most studies of what things actually cause cancer to be quite failed. Every person is genetically different enough that no person will get cancer in the same time, or way, another person would. Some people will take decades upon decades to develop cancer, and others will get it in just a few years. We cannot assume that rats getting cancer will always mean a human will get cancer, either.

 

Most of the reason we know many of the chemicals in tobacco smoke can cause cancer is because we have evaluated the health of smokers and non-smokers for decades. We see some of the same carcinogenic chemicals created from burning some other plants, including marijuana, so our best guess is to assume that these chemicals will behave the same. We cannot prove or disprove this until we know if a majority of marijuana smokers develop cancer from the carcinogens.

 

If some people do insist on abusing possibly dangerous substances, I wish they would at least avoid smoking it. Many plants will produce carcinogenic chemicals when smoked, and smoke will always damage your lungs no matter what you are smoking is made of. Its also the shotgun of ingestion methods. You never know who will breathe the smoke.

[Roach]

On the cancer point, I find most studies of what things actually cause cancer to be quite failed. Every person is genetically different enough that no person will get cancer in the same time, or way, another person would. Some people will take decades upon decades to develop cancer, and others will get it in just a few years. We cannot assume that rats getting cancer will always mean a human will get cancer, either.

 

 

You can't test every person's reaction to a substance, this is why you make several studies to draw a conclusion. Rats are excellent material for testing as they are similiar to humans and  possess a genetic consistency. What would you suggest instead?  Also, could you mention any of these ''studies''? Seems more likely that the general genetical differences was  mentioned in the section that includes the discussion, or perhaps it was badly peer-reviewed.

 

 

If some people do insist on abusing possibly dangerous substances, I wish they would at least avoid smoking it. Many plants will produce carcinogenic chemicals when smoked, and smoke will always damage your lungs no matter what you are smoking is made of. Its also the shotgun of ingestion methods. You never know who will breathe the smoke.

If you are intrested in health issues  you should perhaps look into the effects caused by Bisphenol-A and how the industry manipulated the FDA with industry-funded studies.

[MalletFace]

You can't test every person's reaction to a substance, this is why you make several studies to draw a conclusion. Rats are excellent material for testing as they are similiar to humans and  possess a genetic consistency. What would you suggest instead?  Also, could you mention any of these ''studies''? Seems more likely that the general genetical differences was  mentioned in the section that includes the discussion, or perhaps it was badly peer-reviewed.

 

What most of my my statement meant was that many studies are far too short. Studies into whether or not these substances cause major harm should be lifelong human studies, and not short term studies of humans, or studies of mice.

 

Saying that rats are genetically similar to humans isn't good enough, as a small difference means very much. Most mammals are upwards of 90% similar to us in genes and DNA, fruit flies can be 75% similar, bananas are normally 50-60% similar, and grain can be as much as 35% similar to us in terms of genes and DNA. No matter how similar they are, cancer risk increases with age. When using a short-lived animal, it is hard to tell if cancer was likely.

 

 

 

If you are intrested in health issues  you should perhaps look into the effects caused by Bisphenol-A and how the industry manipulated the FDA with industry-funded studies.

 

 

I would just prefer that they don't smoke it for their own sake. Lung damage from smoke is much more deadly than the damage that would happen to a person if they just chewed and swallowed the product. The "high" lasts longer, too, so I am confused as to why people smoke marijuana more than they eat it.

 

On Bisphenol A, the main reason it doesn't bother me is that every person in any country is at risk of high exposure to naturally occurring toxins at any time when they aren't misusing them. Botulinum toxin A, a toxin produced by Clostridium Botulinum, is the one of the most potent toxins ever discovered. The bacteria that produces this toxin is common in the soil of continents all over the world. Despite the toxin and bacteria being common, cases of botulism are rare, and deaths from it are even more so.

 

A common medical name for the toxin is Botox. BPA has never killed somebody, and it probably never will. People using organisms in an unnatural and strange way does kill, and does so very often.

Edited August 11, 2013 by MalletFace

[DrummerKidJack]

 

 

I would just prefer that they don't smoke it for their own sake. Lung damage from smoke is much more deadly than the damage that would happen to a person if they just chewed and swallowed the product. The "high" lasts longer, too, so I am confused as to why people smoke marijuana more than they eat it.

 

It's because smoking uh... "releases" more THC. The high hits you faster and stronger, from what I understand. I've never actually done the whole hash brownie thing (because I'm too lazy to cook with it), but that's what I've heard from friend. Plus eating it gives you a body high rather than a head high, from what I understand.

 

Oh, if you're interested in longitudinal studies, have a gander at the Dunedin Longitudinal Study. It's really interesting in general, and very wide-ranging, but they've done a thing on marijuana too.

[kinyoshi]

A Government of some sort could create a new virus by modifying the Some type of Cold or Flu like virus they have and clone and stuff.

 

This new virus could be used to target users by activating killing symptoms if an illegal (not alcohol or pot n stuff) drug is detected in the system by the virus...

 

People would stop using.

 

That's twice I solved the hard drug problem.

[Augur]

I think we've got enough problems with the government authorized to use drones on American soil. I prefer not to throw away personal responsibility in favor of having the warm and fuzzy feeling of "doing something" and giving more power to the government to "protect me".

[DrummerKidJack]

I think we've got enough problems with the government authorized to use drones on American soil. I prefer not to throw away personal responsibility in favor of having the warm and fuzzy feeling of "doing something" and giving more power to the government to "protect me".

I don't really understand how drones are related to cannabis here.

 

EDIT: Also, 'murka.