Contact Your Senator - Stop New Drug Czar From Being Confirmed

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Evil Knevil
Marijuana grows wild in many States. The oldest references to recreational weed use are from around 1000-800bc during the first Chinese Dynasty.

Marijuana has cultural significance to some people.... Especially the rastifari movement.

It causes no cell deaths. There have been no causal links between weed and brain damage (quite a few co-orelational studies tho).

Alcohol causes immensely more damage to the brain, even in small doses. This includes damage to the mammilary bodies, causing much more severe memory loss than weed could ever do.

Weed is not implicated in birth defects, except in the same way/magnitude that cigs are. However fetal alcohol syndrome is the largest cause of mental retardation in the Western world.

Marijuana is not psychoactively, or classically addictive. It does can cause dependancy, but thats a personal issue. In fact it is alot like candy in that sense (not fast food which may be linked to classical addiction).

There have been no peer-reviewed studies that provide evidence that weed is a gateway drug.

Saying something is something doesn't make it true.

Goes for you too. Marijuana acts by releasing larger-than-normal amounts of certain neurotransmitters. This has been proved to form chemical dependency. Marijuana has also been proved to be a carcinogen.

Regarding alcohol, I already stated it was a bad thing. However, there's nothing we can do about it.

[Pekka]

gateway, I haven't ever seen any proof of that. I'm not saying it isn't, i'm just saying I haven't seen evidence.
Alcohol is addictive too. Tobacco is addictive. Cofein is addictive and leads to stronger coffee, I don't know, maybe even amphetamines!
Sugar is a gateway drug. Every drug user has done sugar first.

Boxing gives brain damage, eating unhealthy food kills you slowly, and heart attacks and what not.

What my point is? My point is, that is marijuana dangerous enough, so it can be justifiedly be banned.
Everything is dangerous and everything can be abused, I mean you can hurt yourself seriously with trampolines too. But is it dangerous enough? I don't think it is dangerous enough.

So you say why should we allow even if it is not dangerous enough, because it is dangerous? Well people are doing it anyway in masses, so I don't see how it changes anything.
On the other hand, if you don't grow your own marijuana, you have to go see a dealer to buy some. Or your friend has to, someone has to. Now this dealer is likely to have other drugs too. So, maybe because you have the opportunity, you'll try out other stuff too. But if it was legal, you wouldn't have to associate yourself with dealers or other criminals.

I'm not very passionate about this issue though, so don't get me wrong. I'm not demanding anything. I don't even use marijuana, but I admit I have tried it when I was a teenager. I tried it and it made me feel a bit sick.
Then I tried it again, maybe it would work and maybe I just had a bad day. But the same happened, conclusion, it's not for me. But that shouldn't stop me thinking that if others enjoy it, they should have the right to do it if they don't hurt anyone. Well, at least not get shot if they have 200 grams, which is a lot I think.

[Berzerker]

skywalker -

Marijuana does do harm to society.

Marijuana is INANIMATE!

It is a gateway drug.

Nonsense, "gateway" drugs are a fiction created by social "scientists" who give prostitutes a bad name. The fact is the people who experiment with drugs are more likely to try different drugs and people who don't will likely avoid drugs. I've played many sports in my life, if basketball was my first, would you claim basketball is a "gateway" sport? Of course not!

Marijuana is a carcinogen

Yeah, the graveyards are full of people who died from marijuana induced cancer. Do you know how the "scientific" community decides if something is a carcinogen? They genetically breed mice to enhance their susceptibility to cancer, then they pump them full of chemicals far in excess what a human would ingest in a lifetime.

it is addictive

The word "addictive" use to mean a physical addiction, but since pot wasn't physically addictive, the meaning has been changed to indict the innocent.

it does cause brain damage and birth defects.

Inhaling any smoke can cause birth defects, but since pot is inhaled at much lower rates than tobacco, that's just another dis-ingenuous (and immoral) argument. Now, what brain damage? Are you going to tell us that pot kills brain cells? So does living, that's what brain cells do - they live, they die... But since my brain cells belong to me and not you, that too is none of your business...

[Kuciwalker]

EDIT: in reply to Pekka

It's the toxicity level.

Again, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of alcohol (I'd support doing so if it was possible, but it isn't). I support getting rid of cigarettes.

Regarding gateway drug argument: the definition of a gateway drug is a drug that has a tendency to lead to the use of more dangerous drugs (thus sugar is not because it doesn't LEAD to drug use; otherwise, AIR, heck BEING ALIVE would be a gateway drug). Most people (especially teenagers) who are going to use cigarettes or marijuana are going to get addicted for two reasons: first, they're addictive and second, teens generally have a feeling of invincibility.

I don't drink caffeine except when the only soda available is caffeinated, and don't support using it for its ability to keep you awaik. However, the toxicity level and capacity for addiction of caffeine is far lower than cigarettes or marijuana.

[Berzerker]

Can't you just kinda ignore Fez? It's not fair to our side that he supports us

No skywalker, it's quite telling. People on your side routinely pick out the idiots on our side to discredit us, so whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Kuciwalker]

I routinely address ALL of the arguments (or try to). Just remember, just because stupid people support us doesn't mean we're wrong

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
EDIT: in reply to Pekka

It's the toxicity level.

Again, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of alcohol

Well then, by that argument you should support decriminalization, since it has proved impossible to get rid of drugs.

[SlowwHand]

"Can't you just kinda ignore Fez?
It's not fair to our side that he supports us"


Sig line material, for sure.

[rev]

Originally posted by skywalker
Marijuana does do harm to society. It is a gateway drug. Marijuana is a carcinogen, it is addictive, it does cause brain damage and birth defects.

Marijuana, of course, has its downsides and negative effects, but I don't think they're quite as bad as you think.

First, it's not a gateway drug. If you're following a chain of events that leads to hard drug use (e.g., cocaine, heroin, etc.), marijuana's probably in the chain, but it's not a catalyst and could be easily replaced in that chain by almost any other drug.

You're correct that it is a carcinogen, but it's not even as bad as most of the chemical-heavy cigarettes offered on American and European markets.

You're also correct that marijuana is addictive, just as sugar is addictive. There's a mental addiction, but physical addiction is minute. There can be withdrawal factors in heavy smokers who quit cold-turkey, but they're not likely to entrap a marijuana user into unwillingly continuing use.

Marijuana does not cause brain damage.

[Berzerker]

skywalker -

Again, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of alcohol (I'd support doing so if it was possible, but it isn't). I support getting rid of cigarettes.

But you think it's possible to eradicate marijuana?

Regarding gateway drug argument: the definition of a gateway drug is a drug that has a tendency to lead to the use of more dangerous drugs

So how do you know if it's the drug or the person using the drug? People are not robots waiting for drugs to push our buttons, these tendencies are called human nature.

(thus sugar is not because it doesn't LEAD to drug use; otherwise, AIR, heck BEING ALIVE would be a gateway drug).

Which is why the "gateway drug" argument is silly since it ignores human nature.

Most people (especially teenagers) who are going to use cigarettes or marijuana are going to get addicted for two reasons: first, they're addictive and second, teens generally have a feeling of invincibility.

And if these teens used alcohol or tobacco first, aren't these drugs the "gateway" drugs?

I don't drink caffeine except when the only soda available is caffeinated, and don't support using it for its ability to keep you awaik. However, the toxicity level and capacity for addiction of caffeine is far lower than cigarettes or marijuana.

Tens of millions of people are addicted to caffeine, far more than either tobacco or pot. But I'm only using the definition of addiction that is now applied to pot - psychological "addiction". Just how many people need coffee to wake up in the morning?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Marijuana is INANIMATE!

Let me rephrase then: if marijuana is legalised, additional harm to society will ensue. Happy now?

Nonsense, "gateway" drugs are a fiction created by social "scientists" who give prostitutes a bad name. The fact is the people who experiment with drugs are more likely to try different drugs and people who don't will likely avoid drugs. I've played many sports in my life, if basketball was my first, would you claim basketball is a "gateway" sport? Of course not!

There's no POINT in calling a sport a "gateway sport". The term "gateway drug" is useful because it has SIGNIFICANCE. If something is a "gateway drug" then it causes damage in excess of the direct effects of using it. And the fact is, people who experiment with certain drugs (the gateway drugs) become more likely to try more damaging drugs not only because they are "that kind of person", but also because of the effects of the drug!

Yeah, the graveyards are full of people who died from marijuana induced cancer. Do you know how the "scientific" community decides if something is a carcinogen? They genetically breed mice to enhance their susceptibility to cancer, then they pump them full of chemicals far in excess what a human would ingest in a lifetime.

Yeah, I bet tobacco is really ok to use too, isn't it

The word "addictive" use to mean a physical addiction, but since pot wasn't physically addictive, the meaning has been changed to indict the innocent.

You mean physiologically (or chemically), not physically, right? Marijuana IS chemically addictive. That is a fundamental property of any euphoric drug, ESPECIALLY one that works by directly stimulating the release of certain neurotransmitters.

Inhaling any smoke can cause birth defects, but since pot is inhaled at much lower rates than tobacco, that's just another dis-ingenuous (and immoral) argument. Now, what brain damage? Are you going to tell us that pot kills brain cells? So does living, that's what brain cells do - they live, they die... But since my brain cells belong to me and not you, that too is none of your business...

The chemicals in marijuana can enter the fetus, seriously affecting development and possibly even addicting the child. Brain damage is cause not because of the smoke (though that may be a factor), but because the massive release of neurotransmitters can damage dendrites, weakening or preventing entirely signalling between neurons.

[Evil Knevil]

Originally posted by skywalker


Goes for you too. Marijuana acts by releasing larger-than-normal amounts of certain neurotransmitters. This has been proved to form chemical dependency. Marijuana has also been proved to be a carcinogen.

Regarding alcohol, I already stated it was a bad thing. However, there's nothing we can do about it.

Show me the evidence for chemical dependancy.

How much to you know about addiction models? Doesn't seem like much. If releasing neurotransmitters formed an automatic addiction, then L-Dopa, Adamintin, Prozac, Elavil, MAO inhibitors and Chloroplazime would all be addictive.

There is no evidence that weed causes effective 'classical addictive' brain changes like nicotine, caffeine, diamorphine, alcohol and the amphetamine groups(fast food as well possibly?)

The addictive properties are due to 'dependancy' either as a part of a person's identity, lifestyle or wether they like the feeling of being stoned. Like candy; "candy tastes great, so I have it all the time".

Weed is a carcinogen, containing about 4X as much tar as tobacco. I'll give you that. Although this number depends on the method of intake (cooking it, or spraying have no problems).

But......... weed is Americas largest cash crop, about 16 million Americans use it weekly. It provides domestic income to thousands of people. It has always been grown in the US, even when it was brought over to New England.

It's a pretty specious arguement to suggest that a substance potentially less harmful than booze, with more utility should be illegal 'because it always has been'.

[Evil Knevil]

Oh and weed is not a euphoric drug. Look at a textbook some time -or better yet have a joint, being stoned isn't being euphoric by any stretch of the mother tongue.

(Damn other posters getting the way)

[SlowwHand]

https://www.norml.org

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
skywalker -
But you think it's possible to eradicate marijuana?

Yes. You can't make marijuana without certain items that are NOT standard household items. However, you CAN distill alcohol with standard household equipment. I could do it if I wanted to. It took all of a minute for my chemistry teacher to explain it to us

So how do you know if it's the drug or the person using the drug? People are not robots waiting for drugs to push our buttons, these tendencies are called human nature.

People are wary of things like heroin et al, but some people who would not use those drugs WOULD (and do) use marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol. They later get into heroin, cocain, etc.

Which is why the "gateway drug" argument is silly since it ignores human nature.

huh?

And if these teens used alcohol or tobacco first, aren't these drugs the "gateway" drugs?

They are. I'm for getting rid of tobacco. I would be for getting rid of alcohol, if I thought it was possible.

Tens of millions of people are addicted to caffeine, far more than either tobacco or pot. But I'm only using the definition of addiction that is now applied to pot - psychological "addiction". Just how many people need coffee to wake up in the morning?

We haven't been talking about psychological addiction, we've been talking about chemical addiction. Caffeine can be both. However, I think that the toxicity level of caffeine is low enough that it shouldn't be illegal. I still disapprove of it. The number of people addicted to it is directly related to the fact that it is in more widespread use.