Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
• Research indicates that the earlier kids start using marijuana, the more likely they are to become dependent on this or other illicit drugs later in life

• Even marijuana proponents acknowledge that marijuana use is harmful for teens. Allen St. Pierre, the executive director of NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marjuana Laws) recently stated that "One can argue before a young person reaches full brain development in their early 20's, they should not use or have legal access to marijuana." (The Ledger, Lakeland Florida , January 3, 2005 ).

• Scientists have proven that marijuana users experience changes in the flow of blood to their brains. Ronald Herning of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found that marijuana smokers may suffer from narrowed blood vessels in their brains, possibly explaining why smokers experience memory and thinking problems. (reported in the Chicago Sun Times, February 8, 2005 ).

• The brain. Smoking marijuana leads to some changes in the brain similar to those caused by cocaine, heroin and alcohol. Here you are correct, except instead of legalizing pot we should place limits on alcohol (via a heavy tax)

• Studies on the brain have shown that pot use alters the hippocampus and affects short-term memory.As an adolescent, there are remarkable experiences that contribute to growth.these need to be set down into memory—and pot use stops this." ( quoted in the Lakeland , Florida paper The Ledger, January 3, 2005 .)

• Lung damage. Regular marijuana users often develop breathing problems including chronic coughing and wheezing. Marijuana contains the same cancer-causing chemicals as tobacco. The amount of tar inhaled by marijuana smokers and the level of carbon monoxide absorbed by those who smoke marijuana, regardless of THC content, are three to five times greater than among tobacco smokers. Smoking five marijuana cigarettes is equal to smoking a full pack of tobacco cigarettes. According to the American Lung Association, there is 50-70% more cancer causing material in marijuana smoke than in cigarette smoke. In fact, marijuana smoke contains more than 400 chemicals. Again, your information is accurate here, and the Govt. IS doing something about cigarettes (again, by increasing taxes, placing tougher laws, and forcing the cigarette companies to make anti-cigarette ads, etc.)

• A study conducted by Maastricht University (Netherlands) and published in the British Medical Journal reported that frequent cannabis use during adolescence and young adulthood raises the risk of psychotic symptoms later in life. (BBC News, December 1, 2004). In London 80 percent of people assessed with a first episode of psychosis are on cannabis. The explosion of cannabis-induced psychosis is already happening.” (London Daily Mail, June 21, 2005).

The above is ALL true. My uncle is, sadly, a pothead so when I write this I know what I'm talking about. My grandfather was a mild drunk and he was still the most brilliant person I ever met at age 86. My uncle is in his forties and mentally he is gone.
 
MarkCollette said:
So, it's only modern inventions that have moved alcohol consumption from a necessity to a leisure activity. Cannabis can not claim equivalent utility.
No, but modern inventions have turned cannabis from a leisure activity to an even more leisurely activity. :D

roornscotch.jpg


imilk.jpg
 
Kingsly said:

Thanks for that Kingsly, I head read about similar research and facts before, but it's nice to see them all nicely organized and documented. I'll copy this list for future reference. :) :cool:
 
Kingsly said:
Here you are correct, except instead of legalizing pot we should place limits on alcohol (via a heavy tax)

Err, no. There have been numerous studies that have shown that moderate (1-2 glasses per day) drinking of alcohols (wine > beer > hard liquor) is better than not drinking at all.

Plus, I don't see it as the government's responsibility to legislate morality by imposing costs on those who live different lifestyles, especially when science has shown them to be more healthy.


jelloshotsrule said:
so does alcohol. do your worst, drunkards

So, only drunk people should reply to you, as opposed to people who merely drink? :)
 
I thought one of the purposes of government was to protect the people it governs. If it is found that something is harmful enough to its people it has every right to make it illegal. Ideally, the level of harm should dictate the level of regulation. Based on Kingsly's post, I'd say it's perfectly legit to keep it illegal. I'm sure, as BV has already pointed out, that if the effects of tobacco were known a lot sooner it would be in the same illegal category.
 
floriflee said:
I thought one of the purposes of government was to protect the people it governs. If it is found that something is harmful enough to its people it has every right to make it illegal. Ideally, the level of harm should dictate the level of regulation. Based on Kingsly's post, I'd say it's perfectly legit to keep it illegal. I'm sure, as BV has already pointed out, that if the effects of tobacco were known a lot sooner it would be in the same illegal category.

And further to this, if caffeine was released today as a new drug it would be banned by the FDA as well. ;)

By the way, I agree with you, I'm just throwing that one out there too - no sarcasm intended whatsoever. :)
 
Hector said:
weed takes a few weeks to fully ware off.

whereas i'm one of those people (known by most as a "bastard") that does not get hang overs.
Maybe if you smoke once a month or something I can then maybe see you feeling groggy the next day, but a few weeks :eek:, I don't think so. I myself have never been high for more than a few hours unless I continuously smoke all day. I'm sure most marijuana users would agree with me on that.

jon
 
floriflee said:
I thought one of the purposes of government was to protect the people it governs.
One of the idealized purposes of government is to protect the people it governs from outside interference of their personal liberties. In reality most governments are in place to control their populations in order to provide an economic support base for the party in power.
In a perfect world it would be more illegal to prevent a person from doing as he or she chose, as long as their actions did not directly harm another person, than it would be for that person to take part in an activity like smoking marijuana.
In reality, we have a system of control in place that is designed to manufacture a population that thinks and acts in a certain way. This is acceptable only because of the vast numbers of people that exist in the world today. You can't give everyone in america free access to something like marijuana simply because of the sheer amount of 'alternative' thought that would occur. There has to be a working nonimaginative population striving toward a singular goal to provide a solid economic structure for the ruling party. With the legalisation of marijuana, and the subsequent increase in usage, there is a significant chance of severe destabilization of the fundamental building blocks of our society. Most people would realize that they are living massively pointless lives and just opt out. It would be like a massive plague, with whole nations of people dying in bed of demotivation or in their kitchens of food overdose.
 
MarkCollette said:
Err, no. There have been numerous studies that have shown that moderate (1-2 glasses per day) drinking of alcohols (wine > beer > hard liquor) is better than not drinking at all.

Plus, I don't see it as the government's responsibility to legislate morality by imposing costs on those who live different lifestyles, especially when science has shown them to be more healthy.

According to some researchers, moderate alcohol use protects against cardiovascular diseases. This means a maximum of 2-3 glasses of wine or beer a day for men, and 1 to 2 glasses a day for women.

On the other hand:
Excessive alcohol use increases the risk of a number of diseases: fatty degeneration of the liver, infection of the liver, liver cirrhosis, sleeping disorders, sexual problems, infection of the esophagus, infection of the stomach, infection of the pancreas, premature dementia, varying from a reduction of memory to the serious syndrome of Korsakoff; cancer of the mouth, throat, larynx, intestines and breasts; hypertension and heart problems. Alcohol is also damaging during pregnancy. Also alcohol takes its toll in traffic.

Persons Killed and Injured in Alcohol Related Crashes, by Role (1999 2000 % Change)

Drivers 201,000 +4.1%

Passengers 98,000 +1.0%

Non Occupants 12,000 -29%

All Crashes: 5,886,000


Alcohol plays an important role in aggression. 40% of all incidents involving aggression occur while under the influence of alcohol. The police spend 22% of their time on cases involving alcohol. Violence on the streets and domestic violence while under the influence of alcohol happen often.

Also at work, alcohol has big consequences. 13% of all employees on sick leave have alcohol problems. Employees with alcohol problems produce at least 10% less work than their colleagues.

Alcohol can make people irresponsible. (well, thats a given! :) )
 
iJon said:
Maybe if you smoke once a month or something I can then maybe see you feeling groggy the next day, but a few weeks :eek:, I don't think so. I myself have never been high for more than a few hours unless I continuously smoke all day. I'm sure most marijuana users would agree with me on that.

jon
You shouldnt be talking like that , Weed is the biggest evil in the world next to Hitler cant you see that?:rolleyes: Its funny as hell our Federal govt keeps making up facts and doesnt use the facts. Its a antinausea. Fact is the feds took a near harmless substance like weed and tried and still lies and tries even today to group it with the likes of coke,heroine,lsd and all that kind of garbage. Marijuana shouldnt be categorized like a narcotic just because of govt spin. It isnt a narcotic except to the politician.
It should be decriminilized and treated as alcohol if we are ever going to control its use. keeping it illegal means no controls and keeps that underground market going. Legalizing its use it could be taxed and money used for education, health,roads and bridges. Now the govt gets its cut,we keep it out of kids hands like tobacco, and perhaps more of those folks that do the hard stuff would sit at home and light one up rather then whatever else they might do like those real narcotics mentioned earlier. Also free up a little more prison space for real criminals.
 
Hector said:
fully ware off in respect to your cognative ability
I need to ask Hector, are you speaking from experience, meaning you've smoked pot before.

jon
 
i'm not willing to comment seeing as this is my real name and too many people know it's my alias, not that this is an idication of yes or no, i'd say the same to every ilegal drug, i've never taken shrooms but i wouldent comment here on it.

PM or IRC for personal questions

edit: dammit!, post is left unaltered i'll let you figure it out....
 
Kingsly said:
According to some researchers, moderate alcohol use protects against cardiovascular diseases. This means a maximum of 2-3 glasses of wine or beer a day for men, and 1 to 2 glasses a day for women.

On the other hand:

snip

So, if alcohol can both have positive affects, and also make people more likely to do negative things, do you think that alcohol itself should be the issue, or rather the negative actions?
 
Hector said:
i'm not willing to comment seeing as this is my real name and too many people know it's my alias, not that this is an idication of yes or no, i'd say the same to every ilegal drug, i've never taken shrooms but i wouldent comment here on it.

PM or IRC for personal questions
Nah, I don't care that much, I just wanted to see if you were speaking from experience or not.

jon
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.