from a recent Playboy via www.reason.com

Invention45,
You have asked a loaded yet deserved question(or should I say questions).
First, I must again say in another form that I did not mean to fire an offensive barrage in my post. After coming back this evening and rereading the thread, I believe I failed to follow one of the firing line's key rules. Think twice, post once. So for that, if I set a tone of hostility toward you, I apologize.
Now, I believe if you ingest the chemicals that are in marijuana in concentrated form, like smoking it, I have a hard time believing that no harm to the body will come and can't somehow be a contributer to cancer. I'm not necessarily saying trying pot once in high school 30 years ago is the factor here. I'm saying a consistent user, whether weekly or daily, or in some cases occasionally.
Smoke to air ratio is much higher taking a drad than it is in the atmosphere.
Doesn't do any harm as long as you leave other people alone? Sure, people get high, get behind the wheel...you know where I'm going with this. It's just one more item that people abuse and then get behind the wheel with altered judgment. At that point, it is time to step in on other peoples' "right to pot".
As far as proving the brain damage, I can only tell you what you have said: scientific results can be twisted. So even if I give you "scientific proof" it would be a moot point and we just might ending up agreeing to disagree.
Truth is you get high(duh). I've never gotten high inhaling smoke in a forest fire. Pretty sure that I won't fail my drug test administered at work after that, but one good drag on a joint will. Just goes to show IMO that it doesn't take a bunch of scientific studies etc. to know common sense dictates what the truth really is sometimes.
I don't want to wait until Mr. User's actions affect Mr. Victim. It already has, does, will. Do you want to wait until Mr. User wrecks your life until something is done? I'm not reactive, I'm proactive on some major issues.
As far as pot leading to other harder drugs, there are countless times a recovering addict says the same story "I started with (enter anything reasonable here), then I tried pot. When I was attracted to the euphoria with smoking pot, I was introduced to even "better ways to achieve a high". Go to any drug recovery meeting, you'll hear the same story in similar fashion all the time.
As far as my loss, I'll be glad to discuss through PM if you want. Just not information that I want everybody and their dog to know especially if they could give a rat's behind.
 
Invention45,
You have asked a loaded yet deserved question(or should I say questions).
First, I must again say in another form that I did not mean to fire an offensive barrage in my post. After coming back this evening and rereading the thread, I believe I failed to follow one of the firing line's key rules. Think twice, post once. So for that, if I set a tone of hostility toward you, I apologize.
Click to expand...

There is certainly no need for an apology. I am sorry if I came across a little strong, but I guess I live and work around a lot of New Yorkers and that sort of gives my way of wording things that edge.

Also, I feel very strongly about this subject. I think that the public has been hyped into hysteria, and that this hysteria actually causes far more damage than drugs themseves could ever, while wearing down our rights.

You may not have seen the post (I forget where), but I do not favor flat-out legaization of drugs. I favor a removal of restrictions on what a doctor can prescribe, and I think that recreation is a valid use of drugs, but that various means of medical supervision is warranted, depending on the drug. In other words, if you just want to get high, you should be able to go to a doctor and tell him so. He will then warn you of the risks and prescribe what you want, but not enough that you don't have to go back and see him before getting more. You pay for this fun yourself, no insurance coverage. It goes on your medical records, so if there's a cancer issue later on, your informed election to use this drug for fun can be subpoenaed and presented to a civil jury. If you use ANY drug outside this system, it should remain a crime.

No, I'm not a doctor or in the medical profession. It's a matter of letting adults do what they want legally so they don't have to go to unlicensed dealers who are also happy to sell to teenagers (one of whom recently died in my area from a mixture of alcohol and dilaudid).

Now, I believe if you ingest the chemicals that are in marijuana in concentrated form, like smoking it, I have a hard time believing that no harm to the body will come and can't somehow be a contributer to cancer. I'm not necessarily saying trying pot once in high school 30 years ago is the factor here. I'm saying a consistent user, whether weekly or daily, or in some cases occasionally.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing with this statement at all. I would be surprised to find it doesn't contribute to cancer. But a biased study that tries to say that it does in order to keep it illegal is not the same as simply saying that it's good sense that inhaling smoke may cause cancer. And citing the way pot is smoked compared to cigarettes glosses over a lot of other possible factors like the ones I mentioned. It just isn't enough to jail people over; there must be a better way.


Smoke to air ratio is much higher taking a drad than it is in the atmosphere.
Doesn't do any harm as long as you leave other people alone? Sure, people get high, get behind the wheel...you know where I'm going with this. It's just one more item that people abuse and then get behind the wheel with altered judgment. At that point, it is time to step in on other peoples' "right to pot".
As far as proving the brain damage, I can only tell you what you have said: scientific results can be twisted. So even if I give you "scientific proof" it would be a moot point and we just might ending up agreeing to disagree.
Truth is you get high(duh). I've never gotten high inhaling smoke in a forest fire. Pretty sure that I won't fail my drug test administered at work after that, but one good drag on a joint will. Just goes to show IMO that it doesn't take a bunch of scientific studies etc. to know common sense dictates what the truth really is sometimes.
Click to expand...

People drink and get behind the wheel. We pretty much wait for the disastrous results and then punish severely. More on this later.

Are you SURE you won't get high in the middle of a forest fire? Plants contain all sorts of stuff. Imagine you have just arrived here from another planet. You see people all over the place burning stuff and purposely inhaling the smoke, which you know is the leading cause of death in accidental fires. You would probably be baffled.

You might also be surprised about failing that drug test after being in a forest fire. Plants and trees are not just wood. They make a dizzying array of chemicals for various purposes, and some might fool a drug screen.

And if you perform your work properly, what business does your employer have inspecting your urine anyway, unless other peoples' lives directly depend on your sobriety?

I don't want to wait until Mr. User's actions affect Mr. Victim. It already has, does, will. Do you want to wait until Mr. User wrecks your life until something is done? I'm not reactive, I'm proactive on some major issues.
As far as pot leading to other harder drugs, there are countless times a recovering addict says the same story "I started with (enter anything reasonable here), then I tried pot. When I was attracted to the euphoria with smoking pot, I was introduced to even "better ways to achieve a high". Go to any drug recovery meeting, you'll hear the same story in similar fashion all the time.
Click to expand...

Here's the "more" I promised earlier. I know a few people way up in the legal system. The constitution makes it very difficult to pre-empt activity. There has to be a crime before there can be punishment. If someone ever threatens you, you'll find this out in a most pointed way. There's nothing the police can do except under very exacting circumstances surrounding the threat. The law is simply reactive.

All I can say about the gateway theory is that back when paregoric was easily available and was commonly rubbed on teething babies' gums, there didn't seem to be a recovering-addict crisis. Back when CocaCola contained cocaine, there didn't seem to be a recovering-addict crisis.

Tell me caffeine isn't addicting. Is there a recovering-addict crisis? Nicotine. Admitted to be addicting by its own manufacturers. Where's the recovering-addict crisis? Actually, I know where it is. It's in hospices all over the place. But society tells them "sorry, you knew it was risky".

As far as my loss, I'll be glad to discuss through PM if you want. Just not information that I want everybody and their dog to know especially if they could give a rat's behind.
Click to expand...

I'd prefer to let that lie. It isn't that I don't care about it. I just don't want to get started and end up abusing an obviously sensitive event in your life to slug out drug control philosophy. There's just too much risk that something really hurtful will be said, and I don't want any part of that. I've had a loss or two, and I don't think I'd want to bring their situations into even a private discussion over drugs or anything else.

----

Again, perhaps it is I who should apologize for my point-by-point approach. I just think there is a better way than what we're doing to get a handle on what has become a real disaster.
 
I don't want to wait until Mr. User's actions affect Mr. Victim
Click to expand...

This is the wackest thing ive read all day. That is the same kind of thinking that the anti gun crowd uses. Dont cry when you lose your guns over that kind of reasoning becuase you yourself use it on something you dont agree with.
 
Although I have a formed opinion on some statements, you do bring up several valid points that I believe should keep an open mind on or at least serious thought.
As far as my employer having rights to urine analysis: Im an aircraft mechanic. That pretty much sums it up. I'll be glad to explain why if need be(seriously).
Back to the beginning: Do you think it is really getting out of control on illegal search and seizures? Or is the media in general sensationalizing the whole thing?
Appreciated your past posts; looking forward to your future ones.
 
As far as my employer having rights to urine analysis: Im an aircraft mechanic. That pretty much sums it up. I'll be glad to explain why if need be(seriously).
Click to expand...

I have to agree that if lives depend directly on you, particularly if you have minimal supervision, that takes precedence over your privacy. That's partly why I advocate the need for a doctor as a middleman for those who want to recreationally use. Your occupation will be in his records and he can warn you or refuse service accordingly.

But mandatory testing of the cashier at the Piggly Wiggly is simple invasion of privacy. Nobody's life depends on his errors. Maybe his boss will lose some money, but then that will be cause for firing, not the drugs. Sooner or later, the errant employee will figure out that if he wants to keep a job, he'll have to curb his use.

Back to the beginning: Do you think it is really getting out of control on illegal search and seizures? Or is the media in general sensationalizing the whole thing?
Click to expand...

I can only answer that one anecdotally. I have had one. It wasn't "illegal", but they were searching for something that most definitely isn't there. Somebody screwed something up and I ended up with a yard (and then a house) full of FBI, Customs, and Sheriff.

It's my feeling, though I don't know, that my computer was somehow hijacked and abused, which resulted in a search warrant. Legal though it may have been, it was in error.

So yes, I do believe it's more than just media hype.
 
Someone who smokes marijuana regularly may have many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers do, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, a heightened risk of lung infections, and a greater tendency to obstructed airways9.
Click to expand...

What about not smoking it? I like how the article omits all other methods of consumption apart from smoking. As a matter of fact - if you're inhaling the products of burniing, yes, it's bad for you.

As far as I know, routinely inhaling combustion products is bad for your health, period.

But marijuana isn't necessarily smoked.

Vaporizing, eating, and boiling the drug to then drink the resulting 'tea' are all options too.
 
Yep, folks are going to 7-11 and asking for a tea pot instead of zigzag papers
Click to expand...
And why are zigzags legal to sell? Oh yeah, because the tobacco industry is huge enough to support it.
 
Yep, folks are going to 7-11 and asking for a tea pot instead of zigzag papers
Click to expand...

People do it now - I'm sure you don't need a separate teapot for it.

But then again, 'paraphernalia' are still legal here and people sell specialized bongs and vaporizer contraptions openly. There's a store within 10 minutes' bus ride from where I am now, specializing in them.

YMMV.
 
People do it now - I'm sure you don't need a separate teapot for it.

But then again, 'paraphernalia' are still legal here and people sell specialized bongs and vaporizer contraptions openly. There's a store within 10 minutes' bus ride from where I am now, specializing in them.

YMMV.
Click to expand...
Because there's no reason not to. Every single one of those contraptions can be used for tobacco or other herbs. In fact vaporizers are probably the best way to warm up incense. Then again vaporizers also remove virtually every negative side effect from smoking marijuana since you're no longer breathing smoke. At that point a single cigarette becomes far more dangerous to one's health than any amount of marijuana.

Yet it's ok to smoke unfiltered Camels that give you a strong buzz but a little vapor that has been shown to be theraputic is still illegal. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top