I'm joining NORML.

[Autocratic]

Aside from saying you saw it on Nightline, can you show us the evidence that it is physically addicitive? Changes in the brain are not evidence of it, and nor is your experience with addicts (psychological addiction is obviously possible, perhaps even fairly common to those with addictive personalities). I'm sorry, but the fact that I've been able to smoke 1-2 times a day for months and then quit for several weeks/months directly following that seems to contradict your claim.

[whiskeytown]

personally, I don't believe that the negative effects outweigh the postive ones and I definately don't believe they merit imprisonment or criminality - not compared to legal substances out there.

Let's talk about all the great medical benefits - reduces anxiety, depression, nausea, and so forth. Our brain has specific receptors that are wired for cannabis that won't be triggered by anything else, so our brain has literally been designed for this stuff as well -

Of course, there are social benefits as well like the kind that alcohol offers with substantally reduced physical effects - (like what you're talking about)

One of the previous posters hit it on the head - there are a lot of industries out there that would like to see it stay illegal - I've read where part of the fight against Hemp was influenced by the synthetic fiber industry who was trying to reduce competition.

Hemp is the form of Marijuana that has great industral uses but not enough THC content to get high off of. - It's illegal in the US but legal almost everywhere else - It's great for making fibers, clothing, rope, and the best part is it's essentially a weed that can grow in the off season after crops are harvested - an incredible financial boon for farmers if it becomes legal as well. -

If you throw a tax on it and promise revenue, that's added incentive to get it going.

(God, I sound like a preacher)

RB

[Blarg]

I wouldn't argue that it has no physical effects, at least short term ones. And I think smoking anything gives you, of course, all the dangers of smoking, which can't be good. I'm skeptical of everything else. That would include your claim of withdrawal effects. I've known so many potheads, from such an early age, for so many years, and have never once heard a one of them say they have withdrawal symptoms. I find it hard to believe that the symptoms you describe are not psychologically based rather than physically based -- that the anxiety of basically changing one's waking consciousness to an entirely different state can't produce headaches and all sorts of other distress all by itself. I'm not saying they absolutely could not exist for anybody, but I'm not convinced that what you are seeing is not correlation rather than causation; that the mechanisms responsible for the effect are not physical but psychological.

[WichitaDM]

[ QUOTE ]


(God, I sound like a preacher)

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

Well preach on i think a lot more people are on your side of the argument than you would think. I think the best way to spread the good word is to smoke up people that have never smoked. Ive smoked up with a lot of people for the 1st time and id have to say that 100% of thems opinion was changed after smoking. That more than any rally or anything else is the way to change peoples minds.

edit - and yes the medicinal benefits are huge. Refusing terminally ill people in severe pain the safest and most reliable pain relief is morally wrong in my mind.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You may not trust scientists, but it would be foolish to believe that marijuana has no physical effect on humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

What doesnt??? Withdrawal from caffeine is probably worse than MJ. My dad started having memory problems from drinking coffee every day for 25 years. He stopped drinking it and went thru a period of feelin horrible, but guess what now he can remember things since he removed caffeine from his diet.

My point is not that caffeine is bad, just that almost everything has an impact on you, and many accepted things in society that have far greater consequences than weed.
Morphine which is a "safe" pharma drug is basically processed opium. The hypocrisy in govt is truly sad.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree.

-ptmusic

[Blarg]

You're right that one of the most dangerous things about the way the government has handled drug propaganda is that when it so obviously completely lies about the horrors of pot, it brings into question everything else, including things even our pea-brained, lying, reactionary government(under any party) can't get wrong. Like, that other stuff actually IS pretty nasty and harmful.

If you want to talk about a gateway to other drugs, it isn't pot; it's lying. If the hysteria about pot turns out upon personal experience to be complete horseshit, as it does, it makes societal taboos and warnings about worse drugs seem far, far less plausible. So the drugs people really should keep away from or have very minimal contact with are, perversely, made to look perhaps a little safer and perhaps more socially acceptable, too, by the lies about things that are pretty safe. The worst thing you can do if you want the villagers to stay away from lions is tell them that kittens are the equivalent of nuclear bombs.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Aside from saying you saw it on Nightline, can you show us the evidence that it is physically addicitive? Changes in the brain are not evidence of it, and nor is your experience with addicts (psychological addiction is obviously possible, perhaps even fairly common to those with addictive personalities). I'm sorry, but the fact that I've been able to smoke 1-2 times a day for months and then quit for several weeks/months directly following that seems to contradict your claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your personal case is anecdotal, as are my first-hand experiences. My point was only to contradict the myth that pot is not physically addictive. You may not have experienced what others have.

-ptmusic

[A_PLUS]

Before I come across as an anti-pot guy. I would gladly pay an extra 1-2% income tax to have it legal.I think that the majority of the arguements against legalization, are BS, and are really just a sort of artificial right wing flag that they waive to tie themselves with the conservative crowd.

onto the bad part....

I have given a good deal of thought and have spoken at length with my old man, who is a criminology professor, and before that was director of a bunch of youth criminal rehabilitation centers (general criminal rehab, not drugs).

Anyway, there is no proof that pot is a gateway drug, it is complete anecdoteal (sp?) nonesense. But pot isnt harmless. There are psychological effects of smoking on a regular basis. The pros, call it "stuck on stupid". Basically, due to the fact that it creates physical and emotional changes during use, it has a propensity to be abused, and cause addiction. Not chemical addiction, like alchohol, cigarettes, coffee, etc. But that doesnt mean that X% of people that smoke pot, end up liking it and smoking too much. Same as with many harmless activities internet, video games, only the effects tend to be a little worse.

Ok, so we all say, "what about alcohol!!!!" Yes, alcohol is worse, pretty much across the board. So what? That is an arguement for the legality of beer, not marajuana. Lets say that alchohol is a 7, on the danger scale for substances. You can't use that as an arguement to legalize anything ranking 1-6.

There are a lot of activities that are 'legal' that we think are more harmful than some illegal ones. The answer to that problem is to criminilze the legal ones, not legalize the 'not as bad' lot.

So, if we can agree that pot has some negative effects, like:
-makes you a dangerous driver
-has potential for abuse (minor or major)
-minor health effects (especially if smoked)

Now, the conventional arguements legalization folks will make, involve a comparison to a now legal substance. Which isnt really an arguement for legalization.

We need to answer:
Why should we legalize Marajuana?

These arguements are weak at best. The economic arguements, about benefiting farmers is very weak at best. Mostly b/c we just arent an agricultural society any more. If legal, it would more than likely be imported. The arguement that is most valid revolves around the cost of policing the drug war now. Well, you need to have an agreement that it shouldnt be policed before you can talk about the wasted cost of policing it. Politically, it is a tough sell to say that 10,000 drug enforcement officers will lose there job, so that 10,000 marajuana farmers can make money.

The rest of the arguements, involving medicinal marajuana and the value of hemp, really have nothing to do with our goal of being able to smoke pot when we want.

I think the best chance we have is to really work about debunking the myths about marajuna, as in the gateway drug stigma, and showing that long term effects are minor. As well as getting VERY successful people to support it. Lets face it, when you have a bunch of people who look like they are still tailgating from a phish concert show up at a rally, it is easy for the government to brush them off.



But, as the poet B Real, once said.....


LEGALIZE IT!!!

[kbfc]

These symptoms sound like caffeine withdrawal. How many of the potheads you worked with were also being weaned off of other drugs, legal or not, at the same time?

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
These symptoms sound like caffeine withdrawal. How many of the potheads you worked with were also being weaned off of other drugs, legal or not, at the same time?

[/ QUOTE ]

In some cases, no other drugs. And you're right about caffeine (as was the earlier poster). But that's my point - marijuana addiction is not purely psychological, just as caffeine is not.

-ptmusic