View Full Version : Marijuana vs. cigarettes
I wanted to hear some opinions on the legalization of marijuana. I'd like to hear them in the context of why cigarettes are legal while marijuana is illegal.
I say that cigarettes are a ton more addictive as well as lethal and it's a bit hypocritical for marijuana to be illegal, but all viewpoints are welcome.
I guess I should throw it out there that my grandmother died because of her addiction to cigarettes, and I've not known one person to have a negative health side effect from marijuana (and I know plenty of weed smokers). I also smoke neither of them.
bills217
10-17-2005, 03:25 PM
Cigarettes are legal because there are big cigarette companies that have highly-paid lawyers.
Not true of marijuana.
Yeah, I've heard that theory. I've also heard that marijuana is easy to grow on your own and therefore can't be taxed, whereas growing tobacco and being able to smoke it is a real capital intensive endeavor therefore normal people have to buy it and have it taxed.
TomCollins
10-17-2005, 04:20 PM
Marijuana is a gateway drug, unlike alcohol and tobacco.
Most people that use drugs that I know began with alcohol and tobacco. I think it's safe to say that most drug users begin this way. It was that way for me. I never smoked cigarettes, but I have no doubt that I would never have tried any of the drugs I have if I never began drinking alcohol.
theweatherman
10-17-2005, 05:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Marijuana is a gateway drug, unlike alcohol and tobacco.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thats such bull.
Yeah, it's complete bull. My guess is it's just a dumb rationalization to make a distinction between making a lethal drug (tobacco) legal while making a comparatively harmless drug (marijuana) illegal.
I wonder how many people have made the leap from not doing any drugs (tobacco and alcohol) to smoking weed. My guess is that the percentage of people that smoked cigarettes and/or drank alcohol before they moved on to weed is staggeringly high.
Autocratic
10-17-2005, 05:56 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Marijuana is a gateway drug, unlike alcohol and tobacco.
[/ QUOTE ]
What a ridiculous statement. First of all, any evidence that marijuana is a gateway drug is established based on the fact that most harder drug users tried marijuana first. Of course that's true - but I'd bet that equal or higher percentages of hard drug users tried alcohol and/or cigarettes beforehand as well. The fact that the "gateway drug" argument is even used is a testament to how weak the case against marijuana is.
Here's a difference: radioactivity levels in tobacco are vastly higher, which of course makes cigarettes vastly more dangerous with regards to cancer than marijuana.
kurto
10-17-2005, 05:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Marijuana is a gateway drug, unlike alcohol and tobacco.
[/ QUOTE ]
Funny. That's so wrong. And, our own government's research has verified this.
matter of fact, Alcohol is by far, the big Gateway drug.
There are a myriad of reasons that pot is illegal in this country most of which have nothing to do with its effects. The two biggies were:
(1) it was actively campaigned against by... of all things, paper companies. Hemp was a major competitor for the production of paper (and other fiberous) products. Hemp produced 4x the amount of pulp as trees... so the companies invested in paper products were facing a market threat they couldn't compete with. (Namely, the DuPont organization)
(2) religious groups opposition.
A little excerpt of the history of its illegalization:
1937:
The year the federal government outlawed cannabis.
-- DuPont patents petrochemical manufacturing processes for making plastics, as well as pollution-heavy sulfate/sulfite processes for producing wood pulp. For the next 50 years, these processes are responsible for 80% of DuPont's industrial output.
--In its 1937 Annual Report, DuPont informs stockholders that the company anticipates "radical changes" from "the revenue raising power of government... converted into an instrument for forcing acceptance of sudden new ideas of industrial and social reorganization."
March 29, 1937: The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upholds the National Firearms Act.
April 14, 1937: The Treasury Department secretly introduces its "marihuana tax bill" through the House Ways and Means Committee, bypassing more appropriate venues. Committee chairman Robert L. Doughton, a key Congressional ally of DuPont, rubber-stamps the bill.
Spring 1937: Congress holds hearings on the Marijuana Tax Act. Dr. James Woodward, representing the American Medical Association, testifies that the law could deny the world a potential medicine. Cannabis was already prescribed for dozens of common ailments, and medical researchers were just beginning to explore the therapeutic benefits of the numerous active ingredients in marijuana. Woodward said that AMA doctors were wholly unaware that the "killer weed from Mexico" was actually cannabis. "We cannot understand yet, Mr. Chairman, why this bill should have been prepared in secret for two years without any intimation, even to the profession, that it was being prepared," Woodward testifies. FBN commissioner Harry Anslinger and the Ways and Means Committee quickly denounce Woodward and the AMA, which already had an adversarial relationship with the Roosevelt administration.
December 1937: The Marijuana Tax Act is signed into law, initiating 60 years of cannabis prohibition and annihilating a multi-billion dollar industry. DuPont and other synthetic materials manufacturers reap vast profits by filling the void conveniently left by the criminalization of industrial hemp.
1937 - 1939: Under Harry Anslinger, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics prosecutes 3,000 doctors for "illegally" prescribing cannabis-derived medications. In 1939, the American Medical Association reached an agreement with Anslinger, and over the following decade, only three doctors are prosecuted.
February 1938: Popular Mechanics describes hemp as the "new billion dollar crop." The article was actually written in the spring of 1937, before cannabis was criminalized. Also in February 1938, Mechanical Engineering calls hemp "the most profitable and desirable crop that can be grown."
http://www.tlmp.org/history_of_marijuana.html
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I've heard that theory. I've also heard that marijuana is easy to grow on your own and therefore can't be taxed, whereas growing tobacco and being able to smoke it is a real capital intensive endeavor therefore normal people have to buy it and have it taxed.
[/ QUOTE ]
If pot was legal and available at 7-11 it could certainly be taxed. Most people would prefer to buy from a corporate supplier that used quality control methods rather than from a dude on a street corner selling God knows what.
Zygote
10-17-2005, 06:14 PM
not according to recent harvard studies. aside from that, marijuana is an introduction to the illegal world. you can only illegally purcahse marijuana so you are liekly to be buying from someone who is invovled in other illegal endeavors. if marijuana was legal it would hurt the illegal community as a whole and relieve marijuana of the "gateway-drug" status.
I believe I treated this subject very well in this post, see what yall think
Weed legalization post from SMP (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=3675983&page=3&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)
Look, bottom line is that no one on the anti-weed side is coming up with anything new. It's all tired rhetoric, and the reasons it will never be legalized are because of the incredibly closeminded religious right, and because of the size of the cigarette and alcohol industries.
Oh, not to mention the fact that nearly no one who opposes it has ever tried it, or researched it themselves.
slamdunkpro
10-17-2005, 06:58 PM
Interesting post, but I'm missing the relevance of this bit:
[ QUOTE ]
March 29, 1937: The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upholds the National Firearms Act.
[/ QUOTE ]
What's the connection?
BCPVP
10-17-2005, 07:04 PM
search function is your friend...
MMMMMM
10-17-2005, 07:28 PM
I think pot should be legal or at least decriminalized.
Regarding health effects, a friend of mine who is a chemist and also quite knowledgeable about health matters told me something interesting way back in the late 70's about the effects on the lungs of weed vs. tobacco. (By the way, this friend also told me way back then about cellular free radical damage due eating char-broiled foods, and he is well ahead of the common knowledge curve on a lot of such things, so I give his opinion some substantial weight).
He said that a joint is about ten times as bad for your lungs as a cigarette, but people typically smoke far more cigarettes than they do joints;-) My guess is that the reason it is worse is the very high content of sticky resin in pot--plus maybe nowadays, all the bad chemicals that weed may be grown with or have sprayed on it (sometimes by governments mass-spraying high-growth areas in attempts to eradicate it with herbicides).
Well, I haven't researched it or even read about it since those days, but if you consider the resin content alone it would not seen unlikely that it is quite bad for the lungs. Heck as I recall the film builds up and coats the interior of a bong pretty quickly. Another friend from those days who used a chamber pipe to resinate his weed was fairly quickly able to produce some of the STICKIEST brown weed you ever saw, simply by having the smoke pass through a small quantity of weed trapped in the chamber.
Well that crap builds up in your lungs too, so moderation is strongly advised;-)
I guess no one read my post.
First of all, a joint isnt the only way to smoke. Over half the carcinogens in marijuana are water soluble, and so smoke inhaled through a water bong is technically healthier than walking through my city's downtown.
Then, to take it further, vaporized weed contains less than 5% of harmful gases found in a joint. Tobacco can even be smoked that way... but who's that lame?
[ QUOTE ]
If pot was legal and available at 7-11 it could certainly be taxed. Most people would prefer to buy from a corporate supplier that used quality control methods rather than from a dude on a street corner selling God knows what.
[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't saying it could never be taxed. I was saying you can grow it on your own, unlike tobacco, which might be one reason why it was criminalized. Imagine if you could just grow tobacco in your back yard (or closet, as my parents did) and easily smoke it. How many people would grow their supply instead of buying it?
[ QUOTE ]
Marijuana is a gateway drug, unlike alcohol and tobacco.
[/ QUOTE ]
I really want to know if this is just some anti-weed talking point or if you have something with more substance to put forth. I was really looking for some intelligent discussion and I was really hoping to understand the other side. I'm afraid your statement means nothing to those (like me) who know it to be false.
MMMMMM
10-17-2005, 07:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
First of all, a joint isnt the only way to smoke. Over half the carcinogens in marijuana are water soluble, and so smoke inhaled through a water bong is technically healthier than walking through my city's downtown.
Then, to take it further, vaporized weed contains less than 5% of harmful gases found in a joint.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure it's better for you after passing through the water, but it still contains a LOT of resin or whatever that sticky crap is, like tar. And it will film or coat anything it touches including your lungs.
Actually, no, the resin is not there in vaporized weed, as the weed isn't burned, it is heated.
I suggest you look more into it.
Honestly I think you'd be surprised.
MMMMMM
10-17-2005, 08:04 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, no, the resin is not there in vaporized weed, as the weed isn't burned, it is heated.
[/ QUOTE ]
All the bongs I remember from nearly 30 years ago burned weed.
Are you saying weed smoke that has passed through water contains no resin?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If pot was legal and available at 7-11 it could certainly be taxed. Most people would prefer to buy from a corporate supplier that used quality control methods rather than from a dude on a street corner selling God knows what.
[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't saying it could never be taxed. I was saying you can grow it on your own, unlike tobacco, which might be one reason why it was criminalized. Imagine if you could just grow tobacco in your back yard (or closet, as my parents did) and easily smoke it. How many people would grow their supply instead of buying it?
[/ QUOTE ]
Some would, sure. But many people live in apts or dwellings with no avail land. If pot was cheap enough, I believe only the true purists would grow their own (I do not smoke pot). Beer is relatively cheap and easy to make if you buy a homebrew kit. How many people really bother?
okay, guys, a vaporizer is not a bong
it is a heating element that dry heats the weed to 400 degrees... baking it, and turning thc into vapor, but not burning it.
it's pretty revolutionary.
[ QUOTE ]
Some would, sure. But many people live in apts or dwellings with no avail land. If pot was cheap enough, I believe only the true purists would grow their own (I do not smoke pot). Beer is relatively cheap and easy to make if you buy a homebrew kit. How many people really bother?
[/ QUOTE ]
Er...perhaps you missed it when I posted that my parents grew it. I know plenty of people that grow it. And it's illegal. I imagine a lot more people would grow it if it were legal. Just my opinion though...and it was just a theory I'd heard. I don't really have any type of emotional attachment to it.
TomCollins
10-17-2005, 09:10 PM
Harvard Study for why marijuana is a gateway drug. (http://www.sarcasmdetector.com/)
andyfox
10-17-2005, 09:15 PM
Anyone have any idea how many people would die in auto crashes if pot was legal? Or is that not something that should come into the argument?
HA
HA
HAHAHAHAAHA
that really made my day.
god that was nice.
hetron
10-17-2005, 11:08 PM
Your friend was on the money in terms of when it comes to smoking joints. I can't comment on what behemoth says, there might be validity to his points. I heard somewhere that Louis Armstrong smoked so much weed that he destroyed his lungs to the point where it ended his trumpet career, though jazz afficionados would know more about this than I would.
As to adverse effects of marijuana, it has been shown to a. cause gynecomastia ("man boobs") and b. lower your fertility (affects the sperm). Studies on whether long term marijuana use causes apathy in humans and/or animals are controversial and no definitive conclusions have arisen from such studies
yeah, if anyone is interested in learning about vaporizers, I have some studies, but I would have to type them up. These things are damn amazing, you can even get tar-free cigarette smoke! It's a shame more people dont know abuot them
and god yes joints are awful.
I fight the whole manboobs thing by working out every day. And as far as the long-term effects, hell they're no worse than longterm cigarette, or alcohol usage.
I just wish people could discuss legalizing weed without their preconceived "DARE" notions, because most of them are ignorantly based, and just wrong.
However, I would vehemently argue that if legalized, it should not be allowed for kids under 18. I think that most people who turn into junkie pothead losers are the ones who start in middle school.
If weed is much less harmful than tobacco, then why aren't you more focused on getting tobacco to be illegal? I assume you were in favor of the Prohibition? Regardless of how hard (actually, impossible) it would be to do, shouldn't you be trying to do that? Really, you're just looking for an excuse to get lit and not get fined. I lump people like you in with those who say they want legalization of weed because of old people's health problems. No one really wants it for that.
I will point out that I have smoked weed in the past, and will do it again in the future. Just pointing out a flaw in logic, imo.
did you read the post I linked to, wherein I stated taht it would be best in my opinion to make alcohol illegal?
no, you didnt, you just lumped me in.
nh
[ QUOTE ]
did you read the post I linked to, wherein I stated taht it would be best in my opinion to make alcohol illegal?
no, you didnt, you just lumped me in.
nh
[/ QUOTE ]
meanwhile, i will continue to address my arguments to the OP...
You see, I say that because I never addressed what I said to you. Its ok, we're not all perfect.
ummmm
he he, in my defense you didnt mention that it was to OP, and I was the last pro-legalization poster.
my ...bad
Exitonly
10-18-2005, 12:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Marijuana is a gateway drug, unlike alcohol and tobacco.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thats such bull.
[/ QUOTE ]
bluesbassman
10-18-2005, 11:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I wanted to hear some opinions on the legalization of marijuana. I'd like to hear them in the context of why cigarettes are legal while marijuana is illegal.
[/ QUOTE ]
Like "gun control," the social origin of marijuana prohibition is racism. Specifically, many of the original mj prohibition laws were passed to target Mexican migrant workers, and to a lesser extent, black jazz musicians in the South. That, combined with the Puritanical element still found in American culture, entrenched drug prohibition laws.
[ QUOTE ]
I say that cigarettes are a ton more addictive as well as lethal and it's a bit hypocritical for marijuana to be illegal, but all viewpoints are welcome.
[/ QUOTE ]
Marijuana and all other drugs should be legal, regardless of how harmful or addictive they (allegedly) are.
That being said, regular marijuana use is certainly much less physically harmful than cigarette use, if for no other reason than one typically smokes much less than the latter to get the desired effect. Especially these days, the THC content is so high that one need only take a couple of drags to get intoxicated. You could get stoned every day and only consume a few joints per week. The occasional marijuana user who smokes a water pipe or vaporizer a couple of times per week probably isn't taking a significant physical risk.
Cyrus
10-18-2005, 11:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Any evidence that marijuana is a gateway drug is established based on the fact that most harder drug users tried marijuana first.
[/ QUOTE ]
They had already tried broccoli, too. Maybe we should ban broccoli.
Here's another statistic one could dig up, I'm sure: Most marijuana users were not virgins when they tried it out the first time.
I guess we can deduct that being a virgin keeps drugs away.
JoshuaD
10-18-2005, 12:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone have any idea how many people would die in auto crashes if pot was legal? Or is that not something that should come into the argument?
[/ QUOTE ]
Far less than die in car crashes from alchohol being legal.
Autocratic
10-18-2005, 12:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If weed is much less harmful than tobacco, then why aren't you more focused on getting tobacco to be illegal? I assume you were in favor of the Prohibition? Regardless of how hard (actually, impossible) it would be to do, shouldn't you be trying to do that? Really, you're just looking for an excuse to get lit and not get fined. I lump people like you in with those who say they want legalization of weed because of old people's health problems. No one really wants it for that.
I will point out that I have smoked weed in the past, and will do it again in the future. Just pointing out a flaw in logic, imo.
[/ QUOTE ]
There's no flaw in the logic. You're saying that since one believes marijuana should be legal, and that cigarettes are more dangerous, one should by default believe that cigarettes should be illegal. That's just poor logic. Making cigarettes illegal would not help the cause of people who want marijuana to be legal - and after all, behind this issue lies one of personal choice and how far government control can be exerted. I don't by any means think that cigarettes should be outlawed, but as long as they are widely accepted as legal, there is no basis for banning marijuana.
Also, that you'd dismiss the medical marijuana movement as motivated by self-interest (in this case, getting high) is ridiculous. I smoke pot pretty often, and I will say this: if I had to choose between making it legal for recreational use only, and making it legal for medical use (which does not benefit me at all), I'd pick medical in a heartbeat. The drug policy reform movement is not based around getting high, it's based around having logical laws that benefit society, and in many more ways than allowing kids to get high.
Educate (http://www.drugpolicy.org) yourself (http://www.norml.org).
Actually, start here. (http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6512) Just a sampling of how the movement to decriminalize/legalized moves far beyond a stoner's aspirations.
Autocratic
10-18-2005, 12:19 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone have any idea how many people would die in auto crashes if pot was legal? Or is that not something that should come into the argument?
[/ QUOTE ]
Far less than die in car crashes from alchohol being legal.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is little to no evidence that marijuana legalization would significantly, if at all, affect driving. Considering alcohol's legality, this shouldn't even be debated, but I will indulge.
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5448
That's a collection of good information on the topic.
[ QUOTE ]
If weed is much less harmful than tobacco, then why aren't you more focused on getting tobacco to be illegal? I assume you were in favor of the Prohibition? Regardless of how hard (actually, impossible) it would be to do, shouldn't you be trying to do that? Really, you're just looking for an excuse to get lit and not get fined. I lump people like you in with those who say they want legalization of weed because of old people's health problems. No one really wants it for that.
I will point out that I have smoked weed in the past, and will do it again in the future. Just pointing out a flaw in logic, imo.
[/ QUOTE ]
Uh...Perhaps you didn't fully read the original post. Because if you did you surely would have noted that I neither smoke cigarettes nor do I smoke marijuana, making your "you're just looking for an excuse to get lit and not fined" statement one of the more incredible statements of the 21st century. I was pointing out a hypocrisy. Weed is ostensibly illegal because of its harmful effects. Tobacco is much more harmful than marijuana, and much more addictive. Why one is legal and the other illegal I do not know. I don't want cigarettes illegal because if someone wants to die of cancer that's their prerogative. I also think if someone wants to get lit and not be motivated for a few hours then oh well.
And to Andy, who made the statement concerning smoking weed and driving. Make a law against it, of course, like with alcohol.
DonkeyChip
10-18-2005, 12:32 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Really, you're just looking for an excuse to get lit and not get fined. I lump people like you in with those who say they want legalization of weed because of old people's health problems. No one really wants it for that.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
meanwhile, i will continue to address my arguments to the OP...
You see, I say that because I never addressed what I said to you. Its ok, we're not all perfect.
[/ QUOTE ]
OP made it clear he doesn't smoke either one.
and I dosmoke it, but that doesn't mean I can't put together a cogent and coherent argument for it. and now that I think about it, no one has been able to definitively agrue against either I nor the OP. It's funny, you just hear the same old lines.
And to all the stoners out there, or anyone who has ever tried marijuana, and driven while high... am I the only one who drives much more cautiously stoned? Normally I speed, and do things a little more haphazardly, but not while stoned
but it's okay, we'll just keep these DARE programs in schools, and yet let kids watche their drunk fathers beat mom's and run over people coming home from the bars at night.
I repeat, when is the last time you heard a distressed wife calling 911 afgter her stoner husband beat her for taknig the last of the captain crunch.
come on.
its just silly rhetoric
giddyyup
10-18-2005, 01:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Over half the carcinogens in marijuana
[/ QUOTE ]
My legal practice used to be in the area of asbestos law. If you don't know about asbestos, it was, generally, an insulator used, mostly between the 30's and 70's. Exposure can cause life debilitating asbestosis, where you suck wind just walking to the bathroom, to mesothelioma, a cancer that gives you a very painful and short death.
One of the clients I represented was an 18 yr old kid who had meso, and admitted to smoking pot.
To cut to the point, I sat in on the depositions of all of his doctors (and there were several) and all of them testified, under oath, that in their medical experience there was no known cause of cancer, not just meso, but any cancer, coming from the smoking of pot.
Now, the defense attorneys ran from asking more detailed questions on that, for obvious reasons, and my place was not to flesh out the true story behind pot, but it seems to me, that if there's never been cancer from pot, then i question whether there are ANY carcinogens in pot.
My university was lucky enough to get "medical marijuana" to run tests on in a chemistry lab.
My girlfriend was a lab tech, and she shared some things with me, one of which is the fact that the harmful chemicals found in burned marijuana are blacklisted as possible carcinogens.
However, with new research coming out depicting everything from sunrays to chocolate cake as carcinogens, you may very well be right.
SheetWise
10-18-2005, 03:32 PM
[ QUOTE ]
... why cigarettes are legal while marijuana is illegal.
[/ QUOTE ]
As other posters have hinted, follow the money. If you want to see who's keeping "Reefer Madness" alive, find the most vocal anti-pot organizations and politicians and find out who's funding them -- it should surprise you.
Nothing changes. Al Capone was a generous benefactor to the temperance movement.
Not to sound like a whiney baby, but this is so incredibly unfair.
In other news, what do you think it would take to change this?
A really really rich guy funding a campaign for it?
SheetWise
10-18-2005, 03:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
In other news, what do you think it would take to change this? A really really rich guy funding a campaign for it?
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I understand your point. Do you mean someone like George Soros? He's already committed his entire fortune to legalization.
I just joined the legalization bandwagon a couple of months ago, when I really started thinking about it.
So Im unaware of big players, if there are such. I was just asking what it would take to get people to take it seriously.
Apparently empirical data isn't enough.
sorry if I came off as uneducated on the subject.. but in this facet, I am. /images/graemlins/grin.gif
water bong is still contains resin, however there are pipes that heat up the weed releasing the active thc without all the side effects of burning it. the end effect is one joint = about 1.5 ciggs
Take the number that dies from drunking and driving and cut into an 1/10 that should be about right.
[ QUOTE ]
water bong is still contains resin, however there are pipes that heat up the weed releasing the active thc without all the side effects of burning it. the end effect is one joint = about 1.5 ciggs
[/ QUOTE ]
Um, no. The first studies that are being released now suggest that vapor inhaled through a vaporizer contain less harmful substances than the air in the average US polluted city. 1.5 ciggs is awful, much more of a figure linked to a small bong (i.e. less water = less filtration) or maybe a moderately sized bubbler (a handheld pipe with water chamber).
[ QUOTE ]
Marijuana is a gateway drug, unlike alcohol and tobacco.
[/ QUOTE ]
tobacco and alcohol are a gateway to marijuana.
[ QUOTE ]
My university was lucky enough to get "medical marijuana" to run tests on in a chemistry lab.
My girlfriend was a lab tech, and she shared some things with me, one of which is the fact that the harmful chemicals found in burned marijuana are blacklisted as possible carcinogens.
However, with new research coming out depicting everything from sunrays to chocolate cake as carcinogens, you may very well be right.
[/ QUOTE ]
i heard (on the radio, loveline, dr. drew) that pot, much like many stimulants actually lower your sperm count. not that this is an argument for prohibition, i just wanted to see if someone with academic access could confirm/look this up.
I've been out of the loop for about 2 years now but .5 - 3 was what I was seeing from most the studies out at the time.
Did you know that every goverment funded researce project dealing with weed has recommed that it be decriminalized?
sure glad the goverment listens to what they pay for.
Shaun
10-19-2005, 09:10 PM
Cigarettes are worse. Pot should be legal. It isn't because there are no marijuana corporations to lobby for it, only stoners, who are as a rule a bit unmotivated by such things.
I am a pot smoker though I haven't had any in a few months. I hate cigarettes.
montechristo
10-21-2005, 01:33 PM
i admire your tireless and eloquent defense of the chronic.
PokerMatt
10-21-2005, 02:55 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My university was lucky enough to get "medical marijuana" to run tests on in a chemistry lab.
My girlfriend was a lab tech, and she shared some things with me, one of which is the fact that the harmful chemicals found in burned marijuana are blacklisted as possible carcinogens.
However, with new research coming out depicting everything from sunrays to chocolate cake as carcinogens, you may very well be right.
[/ QUOTE ]
i heard (on the radio, loveline, dr. drew) that pot, much like many stimulants actually lower your sperm count. not that this is an argument for prohibition, i just wanted to see if someone with academic access could confirm/look this up.
[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't cause significant changes to your reproductive capacity. Any change that does happen seems to be temporary and doesn't appear to be enough to affect your reproductive capacity.
Here's a good page that talks about that, along with many other common myths about cannabis:
Common Cannabis Myths (http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/)
kurto
10-21-2005, 05:51 PM
LOL I should have edited. In the context of my post, there isn't much relevence.
BTW- this is just one document. If you find this subject interesting, I 'highly' recommend the documetary "Weed".
It not only traces the history of the laws, the history of the propaganda against pot (very funny) and, best of all, they have footage of the government testing pot on volunteers. Nothing like seeing 1950's housewifes getting baked then interviewed by government researchers.
Someone mentioned medical marijuana...
I saw an episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! where they were discussing the "war on drugs". I was interested to find out that there are 7 people who currently receive federally funded marijuna for medicinal purposes. There were some nice shots of one of the guys standing outside different buildings in Washington openly smoking some big joints. There were 28 or so people at one time who received the pot. Most have died. After the 7 die, there will be no more federally legal marijuana.
It was also note-worthy that even though some states have legalized medical marijuana (ie: California), it is still a federal crime. So, they have to be secret about their locations.
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone have any idea how many people would die in auto crashes if pot was legal?
[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure... but I bet a lot of pot-smoking drivers would hit little girls on bicycles.
kurto
10-21-2005, 05:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone have any idea how many people would die in auto crashes if pot was legal? Or is that not something that should come into the argument?
[/ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't be part of the argument. Drinking under the influence has no bearing on whether drinking should be legal.
I know many a soul who have smoked pot and have never driven a car after doing so.
On a sidenote: I'd probably rathar be driving on a road where half the people are stoned and paranoid then where half the people are drunk.
I have never, and I repeat never driven dangerously while high. I drive extremely carefully, watching for cops all the time, and trying to act inconspicuously.
While drunk drivers continue to run over and kill people daily.
and, haha, I remember that commercial. Classic.
Autocratic
10-21-2005, 07:10 PM
Anti-pot commercials are great. "Whoa, is that thing loaded?" "No..." ::POP::
yeah, but was it just me or did they hve much bigger fatty-boom-batty (as my english friends say) than we used to have as teenagers? And always wrapped so perfectly.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.