Should marijuana be legalized?

[saggyjones]

Should we legalize pot on a national level? I'd like to hear people's opinions.

I believe we should for the following reasons:

--Marijuana isn't linked to lung cancer, unlike cigarettes.
Cannabis Smoke and Cancer: Assessing the Risk - NORML (http://www.norml.org//index.cfm?Group_ID=6891)

--Police arrested an estimated 786,545 persons for marijuana violations in 2005, and 88% were arrested for possession alone.
Marijuana Arrests For Year 2005 -- 786,545 Tops Record High... Pot Smokers Arrested In America At A Rate Of One Every 40 Seconds - NORML (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7040)
Sending that many people to jail is a big waste of tax money for something so nonthreatening.

--2001 Total Deaths: 2,416,425 Cannabis Related Deaths: 138
truth: the Anti-drugwar Cannabis "Related" Deaths (2001) (http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/death/01pot-related.htm)

-Now let's take a look at the alcohol related deaths.


--Marijuana doesn't impair driving ability as much as alcohol, as shown by this introduction to a study:



Here's another quote (facts are on that page but I'm simply summarizing the one above):


As you can see alcohol is a far greater killer than marijuana.

--A common argument is that marijuana leads to harder drugs. That's not the case:


Also, and I believe this is very important, legalizing marijuana will drastically reduce the amount of people who move on to harder drugs. Imagine this situation: A person looking to buy some pot goes to his neighborhood drug dealer because he can't grow it or buy it legally in a bar or something. He goes back a month later to buy some more and the dealer asks him if he wants to try some harder stuff. The person says yes and marijuana becomes a gateway drug to cocaine, meth, heroin, etc. If marijuana is legalized this won't happen because people won't go to drug dealers to obtain it.

--Another common argument is that by legalizing marijuana more people will use it. This is a flawed argument for two reasons:
1. As shown by the number of deaths in 2004, more users won't really make a difference.
2. Pot being illegal doesn't really stop people from buying it (this is based on personal experience, not any facts).

So in conclusion, if you're going to keep marijuana illegal why not make alcohol illegal also? I'm fine with both being illegal since I don't use either very much, but alcohol is a much bigger killer than weed, and it's not harming anyone, so why criminalize it? And as the bold text above states it's actually doing harm making it illegal.

[Eternal]

marijuana is a gateway drug.

usage of marijuana will lead to usage of harder drugs.

however, i have to agree with you on the alcohol part. i think there should be more restrictions on alcohol

[InterestedParty]

Now... the truth....

A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers. Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

Marijuana abuse also has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke. It also induces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form—levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs' exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may be more harmful to the lungs than smoking tobacco.


One study has indicated that an abuser's risk of heart attack more than quadruples in the first hour after smoking marijuana. The researchers suggest that such an effect might occur from marijuana's effects on blood pressure and heart rate and reduced oxygen-carrying capacity of blood.

The short-term effects of marijuana can include problems with memory and learning; distorted perception; difficulty in thinking and problem solving; loss of coordination; and increased heart rate.

Some of marijuana's adverse health effects may occur because THC impairs the immune system's ability to fight disease. In laboratory experiments that exposed animal and human cells to THC or other marijuana ingredients, the normal disease-preventing reactions of many of the key types of immune cells were inhibited.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html

[saggyjones]

marijuana is a gateway drug.

usage of marijuana will lead to usage of harder drugs.

however, i have to agree with you on the alcohol part. i think there should be more restrictions on alcohol

Apparently you didn't read my entire post. As I stated, the legalization of marijuana would lessen it being a gateway drug, because when it's illegal people have to go to a dealer to get it. If it's sold like any other product, you could just buy it at the store, and not be exposed to harder drugs from your dealer. If that's confusing read this:

Also, and I believe this is very important, legalizing marijuana will drastically reduce the amount of people who move on to harder drugs. Imagine this situation: A person looking to buy some pot goes to his neighborhood drug dealer because he can't grow it or buy it legally in a bar or something. He goes back a month later to buy some more and the dealer asks him if he wants to try some harder stuff. The person says yes and marijuana becomes a gateway drug to cocaine, meth, heroin, etc. If marijuana is legalized this won't happen because people won't go to drug dealers to obtain it.

[saggyjones]

Now... the truth....

A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers. Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

Marijuana abuse also has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke. It also induces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form—levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs' exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may be more harmful to the lungs than smoking tobacco.


One study has indicated that an abuser's risk of heart attack more than quadruples in the first hour after smoking marijuana. The researchers suggest that such an effect might occur from marijuana's effects on blood pressure and heart rate and reduced oxygen-carrying capacity of blood.

OK you proved me wrong about the lung cancer part. I'll address why it doesn't matter at the end of the post.

The short-term effects of marijuana can include problems with memory and learning; distorted perception; difficulty in thinking and problem solving; loss of coordination; and increased heart rate.

Along with feeling like a million bucks! lol

Some of marijuana's adverse health effects may occur because THC impairs the immune system's ability to fight disease. In laboratory experiments that exposed animal and human cells to THC or other marijuana ingredients, the normal disease-preventing reactions of many of the key types of immune cells were inhibited.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html

Alcohol and cigarettes are also bad for your body, yet they are legal. I'm sure you know how bad alcohol is, and I don't think I need to post a link; same with cigarettes. What you're arguing for is the government controlling what people do to their own bodies, which isn't fair and pretty much goes against our constitution. Something the government should regulate or ban is stuff that puts other people in danger, like alcohol, secondhand smoke, etc. If you look at my first post you will see that marijuana is not a threat to other people and should not be prohibited. I would support making alcohol illegal but it's not fair to have it legal and keep marijuana illegal.

[USMC the Almighty]

Alcohol and cigarettes are also bad for your body, yet they are legal. I'm sure you know how bad alcohol is, and I don't think I need to post a link; same with cigarettes. What you're arguing for is the government controlling what people do to their own bodies, which isn't fair and pretty much goes against our constitution. Something the government should regulate or ban is stuff that puts other people in danger, like alcohol, secondhand smoke, etc. If you look at my first post you will see that marijuana is not a threat to other people and should not be prohibited. I would support making alcohol illegal but it's not fair to have it legal and keep marijuana illegal.

I could honestly care less about the entire issue, but this is one argument that I never understood "Oh well alcohol is legal, so pot should be be legal."

[saggyjones]

I could honestly care less about the entire issue, but this is one argument that I never understood "Oh well alcohol is legal, so pot should be be legal."

Alcohol causes many more deaths than weed, even in comparison with the number of users.

These are just some random stats:

--2001 Total Deaths: 2,416,425 Cannabis Related Deaths: 138

http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/death/01pot-related.htm

In 2004, there were over 16000 deaths directly related to drunk driving in the United States.

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-deaths.html

[USMC the Almighty]

What do these stats prove in regards to marijuana? If anything, these numbers provide you with an argument for banning alcohol.

[saggyjones]

What do these stats prove in regards to marijuana? If anything, these numbers provide you with an argument for banning alcohol.

I would wholeheartedly support banning alcohol. I just don't think it's fair to people who want to smoke pot that such a harmless drug is illegal and a harmful drug (alcohol) is legal. By harmless and harmful I mean to other people, not to oneself.

[InterestedParty]

"If you look at my first post you will see that marijuana is not a threat to other people and should not be prohibited."

Anything that distorts perception and loss of coordination is a threat to other people. Marijuana included.

You are using a very weak argument. You feel it should be legalized so you can use it without consequences.

Please explain to me exactly how not legalizing marijuana is a violation of the Constitution. (This should be good). :rolleyes:

[saggyjones]

"If you look at my first post you will see that marijuana is not a threat to other people and should not be prohibited."

Anything that distorts perception and loss of coordination is a threat to other people. Marijuana included.

You are using a very weak argument. You feel it should be legalized so you can use it without consequences.

It is much less dangerous than alcohol as shown by the number of deaths in a year related to it, only 138. NyQuil, cough syrup, and other over the counter drugs have effects like drowsiness and loss of coordination and are dangerous while driving, and they are legal. But I'm fine with you not wanting to legalize marijuana as long as you explain why alcohol should stay legal when it's much more dangerous.

Please explain to me exactly how not legalizing marijuana is a violation of the Constitution. (This should be good). :rolleyes:

Did I ever say it is a violation of the Constitution? That's not even part of my argument.

[InterestedParty]

Did I ever say it is a violation of the Constitution? That's not even part of my argument.

You implied that your not being able to smoke marijuanna legally was a violation of your Constitutional rights.



What you're arguing for is the government controlling what people do to their own bodies, which isn't fair and pretty much goes against our constitution.


It is not my responsibility to debate whether or not alcohol use should be legal or illegal. I've seen you use this tactic a number of times now. You attempt to justify one thing by condemning something else instead of debating the issue on the facts. Just state the obvious... you want to be able to get high without the fear of criminal prosecution. You are willing to overlook the potential negative side effects to be able to do this. Just say it. If you truly cared about the effects of alcohol or smoking regular tobacco then you wouldn't support smoking pot either.

[saggyjones]

You implied that your not being able to smoke marijuanna legally was a violation of your Constitutional rights.

Can you quote this part?

It is not my responsibility to debate whether or not alcohol use should be legal or illegal. I've seen you use this tactic a number of times now. You attempt to justify one thing by condemning something else instead of debating the issue on the facts. Just state the obvious... you want to be able to get high without the fear of criminal prosecution.

That's exactly it, except I'm not that selfish. I want other people to be able to get high also. But I also don't think it's fair to pot users that drinkers get to drink without prosecution when it's much more dangerous than marijuana. I don't see how that argument is irrelevant.

You are willing to overlook the potential negative side effects to be able to do this. Just say it. If you truly cared about the effects of alcohol or smoking regular tobacco then you wouldn't support smoking pot either.

Why should the government control what people do to their own bodies? The problem I have with alcohol is that it kills so many people besides the one drinking. Marijuana doesn't do that.

[Kiyomori]

Legalise it and put tax on it. People are less danger to themselves and other people sat stoned at home than out on the streets pissed up.

It's a gateway drug because it introduces people to a world of illegal drug deals. If they were buying it over the counter in their local store they wouldn't be going anywhere near anyone who has an interest in 'E', coke, crack, meth or any of that rubbish. They'd also be taking a lot of drug revenue away from the illegal dealers and creating a new industry.

It works fine in Amsterdam. My friend Loz moved to Amsterdam after finishing Uni a couple of years back and about 6 months ago he quit smoking dope, after having done so illegally for many years in this country. Why did he quit when it was legally available to him? Because he realised he wasn't achieving any of his big entrepeneurial ideas because he was too staoned to act on them. You can easily break your own addictive cycels if you're treated like an adult by the society you live in. smoking dope and drinking booze are both things that can be done responsibly and in moderation but are terrible when done in excess.

I think if it's legalised it can be more sensibly managed... and the Government should be seeing $$$ signs when thinking about the prospect. That's a hell of a lot of tax revenue potential.


Oh and another thing on the drugs subject, did you know that studies show America would save billions of dollars in the war against drugs if it spent more on rehabilitating users rather than costly military campaigns in Cuba destroying arable land. The growers simply move on and start up again while the user on the street barely notices. Stop people using and the drugs problem disappears. Supply and demand. Cut off the demand and nobody will bnother to supply any longer.

[saggyjones]

Legalise it and put tax on it. People are less danger to themselves and other people sat stoned at home than out on the streets pissed up.

It's a gateway drug because it introduces people to a world of illegal drug deals. If they were buying it over the counter in their local store they wouldn't be going anywhere near anyone who has an interest in 'E', coke, crack, meth or any of that rubbish. They'd also be taking a lot of drug revenue away from the illegal dealers and creating a new industry.

It works fine in Amsterdam. My friend Loz moved to Amsterdam after finishing Uni a couple of years back and about 6 months ago he quit smoking dope, after having done so illegally for many years in this country. Why did he quit when it was legally available to him? Because he realised he wasn't achieving any of his big entrepeneurial ideas because he was too staoned to act on them. You can easily break your own addictive cycels if you're treated like an adult by the society you live in. smoking dope and drinking booze are both things that can be done responsibly and in moderation but are terrible when done in excess.

I think if it's legalised it can be more sensibly managed... and the Government should be seeing $$$ signs when thinking about the prospect. That's a hell of a lot of tax revenue potential.


Oh and another thing on the drugs subject, did you know that studies show America would save billions of dollars in the war against drugs if it spent more on rehabilitating users rather than costly military campaigns in Cuba destroying arable land. The growers simply move on and start up again while the user on the street barely notices. Stop people using and the drugs problem disappears. Supply and demand. Cut off the demand and nobody will bnother to supply any longer.

I agree 100%.

[Friendindeed]

I would wholeheartedly support banning alcohol. I just don't think it's fair to people who want to smoke pot that such a harmless drug is illegal and a harmful drug (alcohol) is legal. By harmless and harmful I mean to other people, not to oneself.


First off I support legalizing marijuana.

But here is where I think you go wrong. When you say harmless to other people not to oneself, there is no such thing.
Because if you harm yourself the hospital has to take you and if you can't pay then other people's taxes pay for that or else the hospital raises prices to compensate.

[OldSchool Politician]

Hell No...why waste time legalizing something and its everywhere. It stinks
to people who can't stand the smell, and the majority of the weedheads
don't give a damn where they smoke it.
By me being for the old school days we used to (they still do) grow the
weed in the backyard or in a flower pot in the front yard. I had a buddy
who had a 8 foot marijuana tree growing in his front yard, until one day
it caught on fire, and got the entire neighborhood high.

Each to his own however I do not think that weed should be legalized.

[saggyjones]

First off I support legalizing marijuana.

But here is where I think you go wrong. When you say harmless to other people not to oneself, there is no such thing.
Because if you harm yourself the hospital has to take you and if you can't pay then other people's taxes pay for that or else the hospital raises prices to compensate.

I meant physically harmful, but that's a good point. I still think the benefits outweigh the risks however.

[saggyjones]

Hell No...why waste time legalizing something and its everywhere. It stinks
to people who can't stand the smell,

So do cigarettes. Do you support banning those?

and the majority of the weedheads
don't give a damn where they smoke it.

That's not true. Marijuana etiquette requires that one asks for permission before smoking. Anyone who doesn't is, and you may quote me on this, a douche bag and would never get weed from me. I can't take away your apparent bad experiences with this, so I'm sorry on behalf of the entire marijuana smoking community.

By me being for the old school days we used to (they still do) grow the
weed in the backyard or in a flower pot in the front yard. I had a buddy
who had a 8 foot marijuana tree growing in his front yard, until one day
it caught on fire, and got the entire neighborhood high.

LOL hilarious

Each to his own however I do not think that weed should be legalized.

What about alcohol? Before I argue with you I want to know where you stand about those. Making it illegal is fine with me, but keeping it legal and marijuana not is very unfair.

[Lilly Marlene]

Just to weigh in on this one for a moment,

Yes I support legalization.
The absurd "War on Drugs" has been a complete folly - particularly as regards pot.

[Friendindeed]

What about alcohol? Before I argue with you I want to know where you stand about those. Making it illegal is fine with me, but keeping it legal and marijuana not is very unfair.

I know you weren't talking to me, but you're fine with making alcohol illegal ?
Does history not but teach us somtihng about that ?

[OldSchool Politician]

So do cigarettes. Do you support banning those?

That's not true. Marijuana etiquette requires that one asks for permission before smoking. Anyone who doesn't is, and you may quote me on this, a douche bag and would never get weed from me. I can't take away your apparent bad experiences with this, so I'm sorry on behalf of the entire marijuana smoking community.

LOL hilarious

What about alcohol? Before I argue with you I want to know where you stand about those. Making it illegal is fine with me, but keeping it legal and marijuana not is very unfair.

To answer your first question? I don't care if they are banned or not.
Like the Cigarette ad said...The breath you save is your own.
Ask permission to smoke a joint? hahaha. Bad Expereinces? The only
bad experiences I had was raiding the refrig, or eatting a box of corn
flakes, and a Milky Ways candy bar. (You know what I mean)?

To me Alcohol is just as bad, due to the fact that alcohol is a downer,
and it makes your breath smell like S**t. Frankly I stop during drugs
(including weed),alcohol, and I don't smoke. So I will tell anyone...if
you love your life like I love mine....stop f***ing with it all.

[Koios]

One of the most respectable economist of all time seemed to think we shouldn't just legalize marijuana but that we in fact needed to legalize pretty much every drug. Here is a video of Milton Friedman discussing the matter:

Se_TJzB9-z0

(Direct link to video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se_TJzB9-z0))

[saggyjones]

I know you weren't talking to me, but you're fine with making alcohol illegal ?
Does history not but teach us somtihng about that ?

I don't really care if it's made illegal. But if you're talking about prohibition, marijuana is creating the same situation, and legalizing it would be for the best. I just don't think it's fair that alcohol, which is a very dangerous drug compared to marijuana, is legal and weed is not.

[saggyjones]

To answer your first question? I don't care if they are banned or not.
Like the Cigarette ad said...The breath you save is your own.

You said that marijuana stinks to everyone else, but so do cigarettes. So that reason for keeping pot illegal is eliminated, right?

Ask permission to smoke a joint? hahaha. Bad Expereinces? The only
bad experiences I had was raiding the refrig, or eatting a box of corn
flakes, and a Milky Ways candy bar. (You know what I mean)?

Why should the government step in with personal preference issues though?

And yes, I know what you mean lol

To me Alcohol is just as bad, due to the fact that alcohol is a downer,
and it makes your breath smell like S**t. Frankly I stop during drugs
(including weed),alcohol, and I don't smoke. So I will tell anyone...if
you love your life like I love mine....stop f***ing with it all.

Alcohol is much worse because it impairs you way more. It still amazes me how many deaths result from alcohol every year. Pot doesn't result in many deaths, and in he ones it does cause it's usually coupled with alcohol. As for your suggestion to stop smoking weed, I find that it's a great way to relax and have fun without messing me up. I don't drink because of how bad it is for your body, but weed isn't that bad if you use the right smoking device.

So why do you think it should be illegal?

[saggyjones]

One of the most respectable economist of all time seemed to think we shouldn't just legalize marijuana but that we in fact needed to legalize pretty much every drug. Here is a video of Milton Friedman discussing the matter:

Se_TJzB9-z0

(Direct link to video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se_TJzB9-z0))

I really don't have time to watch that but if you want to basically sum it up I would reply to it. I'll bookmark it for some other time though.

[USMC the Almighty]

I have great respect for Friedman. I'll be sure to check it out...

[Koios]

Well its been a while since I watched it myself but he does bring up the prohibition and how it had a negative effect. He discusses how many prisoners today might have been reputable citizens if it wasn't because they are considered criminals under the current system. Addicts could seek help without fearing imprisonment. He also talks about how regulation of drugs would make drugs a lot safer since part of the problem today is that many drugs are not "pure". He then goes on to argue how stronger and more dangerous drugs are being developed BECAUSE of illegality (i.e crack cocaine).

While his argument is quite economically sound, I wonder what else would emerge after all drugs are legalized. I mean, there are many people who are always looking to be "on the edge" of things and those people would probably want something else that is not legal.

[USMC the Almighty]

I think Mr. Friedman has me convinced from an economic standpoint...

[saggyjones]

Well its been a while since I watched it myself but he does bring up the prohibition and how it had a negative effect. He discusses how many prisoners today might have been reputable citizens if it wasn't because they are considered criminals under the current system. Addicts could seek help without fearing imprisonment. He also talks about how regulation of drugs would make drugs a lot safer since part of the problem today is that many drugs are not "pure". He then goes on to argue how stronger and more dangerous drugs are being developed BECAUSE of illegality (i.e crack cocaine).

While his argument is quite economically sound, I wonder what else would emerge after all drugs are legalized. I mean, there are many people who are always looking to be "on the edge" of things and those people would probably want something else that is not legal.

Hearing this I think I would agree with him, especially the bolded sentence.

To your last paragraph, I agree, but it doesn't really matter then if we legalize drugs or not, because they will always look for illegal things. Maybe then they will move away from drugs and toward crime or something, so there would be drawbacks.

[9sublime]

If alcohol had never been invented, and someone created it today there is no way it would be made legal. The government would say no because it:

Induces violence
It can kill through overdose
It is addictive
It causes liver damage
It severley impares all judgement and senses

and pubs and bars not exist, instead they would be a form of crackhouse for alcoholics. So why isn't marijuana legal too?

Because now its illegal, people believe everything they hear about it, and don't want to change it because stories will come in about kids killing themselves on the stuff (which happens on alcohol every day). The government would have a hard time taxing it as well.

The other day I also read in the paper that strains of skunk are just as powerful as heroin. Thats almost as misinformed as those Reefer Madness videos from the 50's.

[vyo476]

If alcohol had never been invented, and someone created it today there is no way it would be made legal. The government would say no because it:

Induces violence
It can kill through overdose
It is addictive
It causes liver damage
It severley impares all judgement and senses

and pubs and bars not exist, instead they would be a form of crackhouse for alcoholics. So why isn't marijuana legal too?

Because now its illegal, people believe everything they hear about it, and don't want to change it because stories will come in about kids killing themselves on the stuff (which happens on alcohol every day). The government would have a hard time taxing it as well.

The other day I also read in the paper that strains of skunk are just as powerful as heroin. Thats almost as misinformed as those Reefer Madness videos from the 50's.

That is the heart of the issue, all right. Alcohol is a cultural thing here in America - our ancestors here drank beer and everyone else (except the Mormons and the Quakers, of course) have drank beer throughout the years between 1776 and now. The people of America want their beer just like their forefathers wanted their beer (or whiskey, which I'm given to understand was even more popular back then).

That being said, I don't think that making marijuana legal would be shat all over quite so quickly as you seem to be predicting. Sure, there would be people opposed to it, and yes, certain media outlets would be flooded with tales of youngsters exposed to the "newly legalized evils of marijuana" or some such nonsense. But I still think it'd be good for America and enough of the media either wouldn't have an opinion on the subject (which gives a much better chance of them being objective in reporting the results) or would be for it.

And as for the taxation thing, why would it be so hard? I think that a good chunk of the people who currently grow, sell, or use marijuana in America today would gladly pay a little extra to the government in exchange for the ability to do so without the threat of fines and imprisonment hanging over their heads. Sure, you'd still get the people who try to sneak by the tax laws, and that could potentially become a problem, but I don't think it will, for the reasons enumerated above.

[Rokerijdude11]

marijuana is a gateway drug.

usage of marijuana will lead to usage of harder drugs.

however, i have to agree with you on the alcohol part. i think there should be more restrictions on alcohol
care to back this Nonsensical claim with some facts?

[Rokerijdude11]

Now... the truth....

A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers. Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

Marijuana abuse also has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke. It also induces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form—levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs' exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may be more harmful to the lungs than smoking tobacco.


One study has indicated that an abuser's risk of heart attack more than quadruples in the first hour after smoking marijuana. The researchers suggest that such an effect might occur from marijuana's effects on blood pressure and heart rate and reduced oxygen-carrying capacity of blood.

The short-term effects of marijuana can include problems with memory and learning; distorted perception; difficulty in thinking and problem solving; loss of coordination; and increased heart rate.

Some of marijuana's adverse health effects may occur because THC impairs the immune system's ability to fight disease. In laboratory experiments that exposed animal and human cells to THC or other marijuana ingredients, the normal disease-preventing reactions of many of the key types of immune cells were inhibited.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html



what a CROCK of CRAP fed to you by those who Villanized Mj in order to once again lie to the people and profit what you postsed isnt true at all that is Government rhetorics plain and simple

Now for some real truth we will start here

If you think you can PROVE ANY of what i post on this as WRONG.... feel free to go to the author that i am getting my research from, and collect 100,000,.00 cash IF you can PROVE ANY of it wrong that is........

good luck

http://jackherer.com/comparison.html



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
In The Matter Of MARIJUANA RESCHEDULING PETITION
Docket No. 86-22
OPINION AND RECOMMENDED RULING, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FRANCIS L. YOUNG, Administrative Law Judge
DATED: SEPTEMBER 6, 1988

Section 8 of Judge Young's "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision."

Page 56 & 57 http://mojo.calyx.net/~olsen/MEDICAL/YOUNG/young

3. The most obvious concern when dealing with drug safety is the possibility of lethal effects. Can the drug cause death?

4. Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality.

This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world. Estimates suggest that from twenty million to fifty million Americans routinely, albeit illegally, smoke marijuana without the benefit of direct medical supervision. Yet, despite this long history of use and the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death.

6. By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year.

7. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death.

8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.

9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity.

[Rokerijdude11]

http://jackherer.com/chapter04.html


A Conspiracy to Wipe Out the Natural Competition

In the mid-1930s, when the new mechanical hemp fiber stripping machines and machines to conserve hemp's high-cellulose pulp finally became state-of-the-art, available and affordable, the enormous timber acreage and businesses of the Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division, Kimberly Clark (USA), St. Regis - and virtually all other timber, paper and large newspaper holding companies - stood to lose billions of dollars and perhaps go bankrupt.

Coincidentally, in 1937, DuPont had just patented processes for making plastics from oil and coal, as well as a new sulfate/sulfite process for making paper from wood pulp. According to DuPont's own corporate records and historians,* these processes accounted for over 80% of all the company's railroad carloadings over the next 60 years into the 1990s.

*Author's research and communications with DuPont, 1985-1996.

If hemp had not been made illegal, 80% of DuPont's business would never have materialized and the great majority of the pollution which has poisoned our Northwestern and Southeastern rivers would not have occurred.

In an open marketplace, hemp would have saved the majority of America's vital family farms and would probably have boosted their numbers, despite the Great Depression of the 1930s.

But competing against environmentally-sane hemp paper and natural plastic technology would have jeopardized the lucrative financial schemes of Hearst, DuPont and DuPont's chief financial backer, Andrew Mellon of the Mellon Bank of Pittsburgh.

"Social Reorganization"

A series of secret meetings were held.

In 1931, Mellon, in his role as Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury, appointed his future nephew-in-law, Harry J. Anslinger, to be head of the newly reorganized Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (FBNDD), a post he held for the next 31 years.

These industrial barons and financiers knew that machinery to cut, bale, decorticate (separate the fiber from the high-cellulose hurd), and process hemp into paper or plastics was becoming available in the mid-1930s. Cannabis hemp would have to go.

In DuPont's 1937 Annual Report to its stockholders, the company strongly urged continued investment in its new, but not readily accepted, petrochemical synthetic products. DuPont was anticipating "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."*

*(DuPont Company, annual report, 1937, our emphasis added.)

In the Marijuana Conviction (University of Virginia Press, 1974), Richard Bonnie and Charles Whitebread II detailed this process:

"By the fall of 1936, Herman Oliphant (general counsel to the Treasury Department) had decided to employ the taxing power [of the federal government], but in a statute modeled after the National Firearms Act and wholly unrelated to the 1914 Harrison [narcotics] Act. Oliphant himself was in charge of preparing the bill. Anslinger directed his army to turn its campaign toward Washington.

"The key departure of the marijuana tax scheme from that of the Harrison Act is the notion of the prohibitive tax. Under the Harrison Act, a non-medical user could not legitimately buy or possess narcotics. To the dissenters in the Supreme Court decisions upholding the act, this clearly demonstrated that Congress' motive was to prohibit conduct rather than raise revenue. So in the National Firearms Act, designed to prohibit traffic in machine guns, Congress 'permitted' anyone to buy a machine gun, but required him to pay a $200 transfer tax* and carry out the purchase on an order form.

"The Firearms Act, passed in June 1934, was the first act to hide Congress' motives behind a prohibitive tax. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the anti-machine gun law on March 29, 1937. Oliphant had undoubtedly been awaiting the Court's decision, and the Treasury Department introduced its marihuana tax bill two weeks later, April 14, 1937."

Thus, DuPont's** decision to invest in new technologies based on "forcing acceptance of sudden new ideas of industrial and social reorganization" makes sense.

* About $5,000 in 1998 dollars.

** It is interesting to note that on April 29, 1937, two weeks after the Marihuana Tax Act was introduced, DuPont's foremost scientist, Wallace Hume Carothers, the inventor of nylon for DuPont, the world's number one organic chemist, committed suicide by drinking cyanide. Carothers was dead at age 41. . .

A Question of Motive

DuPont's plans were alluded to during the 1937 Senate hearings by Matt Rens, of Rens Hemp Company:

Mr. Rens: Such a tax would put all small producers out of the business of growing hemp, and the proportion of small producers is considerable. . . The real purpose of this bill is not to raise money, is it?

Senator Brown: Well, we're sticking to the proposition that it is.

Mr. Rens: It will cost a million.

Senator Brown: Thank you. (Witness dismissed.)

Hearst, His Hatred and Hysterical Lies

Concern about the effects of hemp smoke had already led to two major governmental studies. The British governor of India released the Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission 1893-1894 on heavy bhang smokers in the subcontinent.

And in 1930, the U.S. government sponsored the Siler Commission study on the effects of off-duty smoking of marijuana by American servicemen in Panama. Both reports concluded that marijuana was not a problem and recommended that no criminal penalties apply to its use.

In early 1937, Assistant U.S. Surgeon General Walter Treadway told the Cannabis Advisory Subcommittee of the League of Nations that, "It may be taken for a relatively long time without social or emotional breakdown. Marihuana is habit-forming. . . in the same sense as. . . sugar or coffee."

But other forces were at work. The war fury that led to the Spanish American War in 1898 was ignited by William Randolph Hearst, through his nationwide chain of newspapers, and marked the beginning of "yellow journalism"* as a force in American politics.

* Webster's Dictionary defines "yellow journalism" as the use of cheaply sensational or unscrupulous methods in newspapers and other media to attract or influence the readers.

In the 1920s and '30s, Hearst's newspapers deliberately manufactured a new threat to America and a new yellow journalism campaign to have hemp outlawed. For example, a story of a car accident in which a "marijuana cigarette" was found would dominate the headlines for weeks, while alcohol related car accidents (which outnumbered marijuana connected accidents by more than 10,000 to 1) made only the back pages.

This same theme of marijuana leading to car accidents was burned into the minds of Americans over and over again the in late 1930s by showing marijuana related car accident headlines in movies such as "Reefer Madness" and "Marijuana - Assassin of Youth."

[Rokerijdude11]

learn the REAL truth HERE

http://jackherer.com/chapters.html


Prove ANY of it Wrong and collect the cash!!! But you wont.....cuz you cant

http://jackherer.com/chapter15.html

After 15 days of taking testimony and more than a year's legal deliberation, DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young formally urged the DEA to allow doctors to prescribe marijuana. In a September 1988 judgement, he ruled: "The evidence in this record clearly shows that marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision . . . It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record. In strict medical terms, marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."

Yet former DEA Administrator John Lawn, his successor, Robert Bonner, and current DEA Administrator John Constantine - non-doctors all! - have refused to comply and have continued to deprive persons of medical cannabis, according to their own personal discretion.

Wasting Time, Wasting Lives

More than 100 years have passed since the 1894 British Raj commission study of hashish smokers in India reported cannabis use was harmless and even helpful. Numerous studies since have all agreed: The most prominent being Siler, LaGuardia, Nixon's Shafer Commission, Canada's LeDain Commission, and the California Research Advisory Commission.

Concurrently, American presidents have praised hemp, the USDA amassed volumes of data showing its value as a natural resource, and in 1942 the Roosevelt administration even made Hemp for Victory, a film glorifying our patriotic hemp farmers. That same year, Germany produced The Humorous Hemp Primer, a comic book, written in rhyme, extolling hemp's virtues. (See appendix I of the paper version of this book.)

Yet even the humane use of hemp for medicine is now denied. Asked in late 1989 about the DEA's failure to implement his decision quoted above, Judge Young responded that administrator John Lawn was being given time to comply.

More than a year after that ruling, Lawn officially refused to reschedule cannabis, again classing it as a Schedule I "dangerous" drug that is not even allowed to be used as medicine.

Decrying this needless suffering of helpless Americans, the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws (NORML) and the Family Council on Drug Awareness quickly demanded Lawn's resignation. His successors, Bonner, and now Constantine, retain the same policy.

What hypocrisy allows public officials to scoff at the facts and deny the truth? How do they rationalize their atrocities? How? They invent their own experts.

Government Doublespeak

Since 1976, our federal government (e.g., NIDA, NIH, DEA*, and Action), police sponsored groups (like DARE*), and special interest groups (like PDFA*) have proclaimed to public, press, and parent groups alike that they have "absolute evidence" of the shocking negative effects of marijuana smoking.

* National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, Drug Enforcement Agency, Drug Abuse Resistance Education, Partnership for a Drug Free America. All subsequent researchers found Heath's marijuana findings to be of no value, because carbon monoxide poisoning and other factors were totally left out.

When U.S. government sponsored research prior to 1976 indicated that cannabis was harmless or beneficial, the methodology of how each study was done was always presented in detail in the reports; e.g., read The Therapeutic Potential of Marijuana (1976) and you will see exactly what the methodology of each medical study was.

However, when our government bureaucrats deliberately sponsored negative marijuana research, time and time again Playboy magazine, NORML, High Times, etc. had to sue under the new Freedom of Information Act to find out the actual laboratory methodology these "experiments" employed.

What they found was shocking.

[Rokerijdude11]

http://jackherer.com/chapter15.html


Lingering THC Metabolites

The Hype:

It Stays in Your System for 30 Days

The government also claimed that since "THC metabolites" stay in the body's fatty cells for up to 30 days after ingestion, just one joint was very dangerous; inferring that the long range view of what these THC metabolites eventually could do to the human race could not even be guessed and other pseudo-scientific double-talk (e.g., phrases like: "might be," "could mean," "possibly," "perhaps," etc.)*

* "May, might, could, and possibly are not scientific conclusions." Dr. Fred Oerther, M.D., September 1986.

The Facts:

Government's Own Experts Say That Metabolites Are Non-Toxic, Harmless Residue

We interviewed three doctors of national reputation either currently working (or having worked) for the U.S. government on marijuana research:

- Dr. Thomas Ungerlieder, M.D., UCLA, appointed by Richard Nixon in 1969 to the President's Select Committee on Marijuana, re-appointed by Ford, Carter, and Reagan, and currently head of California's "Marijuana Medical Program;"

- Dr. Donald Tashkin, UCLA, M.D., for the last 29 years the U.S. government's and the world's leading marijuana researcher on pulmonary functions; and

- Dr. Tod Mikuriya, M.D., former national administrator and grant distributor of the U.S. government's marijuana research programs in the late 1960s.

In effect these doctors said that the active ingredients in THC are used-up in the first or second pass through the liver. The leftover THC metabolites then attach themselves, in a very normal way, to fatty deposits, for the body to dispose of later, which is a safe and perfectly natural process.

Many chemicals from foods, herbs, and medicines do this same thing all the time in your body. Most are not dangerous and THC metabolites show less toxic* potential than virtually any known metabolic leftovers in your body!

* The U.S. government has also known since 1946 that the oral dose of cannabis required to kill a mouse is about 40,000 times the dose required to produce typical symptoms of intoxication. (Mikuriya, Tod, Marijuana Medical Papers, 1976; Loewe, journal of Pharmacological and Experimental Therapeutics, October, 1946.)

THC metabolites left in the body can be compared to the ash of a cigarette: The inert ingredient left over after the active cannabinoids have been metabolized by the body. These inert metabolites are what urinary analysis studies show when taken to discharge military or factory or athletic personnel for using, or being in the presence of cannabis within the last 30 days.

Lung Damage Studies

The Hype:

More Harmful Than Tobacco

According to the American Lung Association, cigarettes and tobacco smoking related diseases kill more than 430,000 Americans every year. Fifty million Americans smoke, and 3,000 teens start each day. The Berkeley carcinogenic tar studies of the late 1970s concluded that "marijuana is one-and-a-half times more carcinogenic than tobacco."

The Fact:

Not One Documented Case of Cancer

There are lung irritants involved in any smoke. Cannabis smoke causes mild irritation to the large airways of the lungs. Symptoms disappear when smoking is discontinued.

However, unlike tobacco smoke, cannabis smoke does not cause any changes in the small airways, the area where tobacco smoke causes long term and permanent damage. Additionally, a tobacco smoker will smoke 20 to 60 cigarettes a day, while a heavy marijuana smoker may smoke five to seven joints a day, even less when potent high-quality flower tops are available.

While tens of millions of Americans smoke pot regularly, cannabis has never caused a known case of lung cancer as of December 1997, according to America's foremost lung expert, Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA. He considers the biggest health risk to the lungs would be a person smoking 16 or more "large" spliffs a day of leaf/bud because of the hypoxia of too much smoke and not enough oxygen.

Tashkin feels there is no danger for anyone to worry about potentiating emphysema "in any way" by the use of marijuana totally the opposite of tobacco.

Cannabis is a complex, highly evolved plant. There are some 400 compounds in its smoke. Of these, 60 are presently known to have therapeutic value.

Cannabis may also be eaten, entirely avoiding the irritating effects of smoke. However, four times more of the active ingredients of smoked cannabis are absorbed by the human body than when the same amount is eaten. And the prohibition inflated price of black market cannabis, combined with harsh penalties for cultivation, prevent most persons from being able to afford the luxury of a less efficient, though healthier, means of ingestion.

Lab Studies Fail to Reflect the Real World

Studies have proven that many of the carcinogens in cannabis can be removed by using a water pipe system. Our government omitted this information and its significance when speaking to the press. At the same time politicians outlawed the sale of water pipes, labeling them "drug paraphernalia."

How Rumors Get Started

In 1976, Dr. Tashkin, M.D., UCLA, sent a written report to Dr. Gabriel Nahas at the Rheims, France, Conference on "Potential Cannabis Medical Dangers." That report became the most sensationalized story to come out of this negative world conference on cannabis.

This surprised Tashkin, who had sent the report to the Rheims conference as an afterthought.

What Tashkin reported to the Rheims conference was that only one of the 29 pulmonary areas of the human lung studied the large air passageway Did he find marijuana to be more of an irritant (by 15 times) than tobacco. This figure is insignificant, however, since Tashkin also notes that tobacco has almost no effect on this area. Therefore, 15 times almost nothing is still almost nothing. in any event, cannabis has a positive or neutral effect in most other areas of the lung. (See Chapter 7, "Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis.")

(Tashkin, Dr. Donald, UCLA studies, 1969-83; UCLA Pulmonary Studies, 1969-95.)

Afterwards in 1977, the U.S. government resumed funding for ongoing cannabis pulmonary studies which it had cut two years earlier when Tashkin reported encouraging therapeutic results with marijuana/lung studies. But now the government limited funding only to research to the large air passageway.

We have interviewed Dr. Tashkin dozens of times. In 1986 I asked him about an article he was preparing for the New England Journal of Medicine, indicating that cannabis smoke caused as many or more pre-cancerous lesions as tobacco in "equal" amounts.

Most people do not realize, nor are the media told, that any tissue abnormality (abrasion, eruption, or even redness) is called a pre-cancerous lesion. Unlike lesions caused by tobacco, the THC-related lesions contain no radioactivity.

We asked Tashkin how many persons had gone on to get lung cancer in these or any other studies of long-term cannabis-only smokers (Rastas, Coptics, etc.)

Sitting in his UCLA laboratory, Dr. Tashkin looked at me and said, "That's the strange part. So far no one we've studied has gone on to get lung cancer."

"Was this reported to the press?"

"Well, it's in the article," Dr. Tashkin said. "But no one in the press even asked. They just assumed the worst." His answer to us was still that not one single case of lung cancer in someone who only smoked cannabis, has ever been reported. It should be remembered that he and other doctors had predicted 20 years ago, their certainty that hundreds of thousands of marijuana smokers would by now (1997) have developed lung cancer.

[Truth-Bringer]

Yes, it should be legalized.

And Jack Herer rules!

[palerider]

If you think you can PROVE ANY of what i post on this as WRONG.... feel free to go to the author that i am getting my research from, and collect 100,000,.00 cash IF you can PROVE ANY of it wrong that is........

No problem. From the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

In the study, researchers examined samples of respiratory tract tissue from participants who ranged in age from 21 to 50. To be eligible, the participants had to be in one or more of the following categories: Marijuana smokers who smoked an average of 10 or more marijuana cigarettes a week for the last five years or longer; crack cocaine smokers who smoked one gram or more of crack cocaine a week for nine months or longer within the past year; or tobacco smokers who smoked 20 cigarettes or more a day for the last five years.

The researchers looked at genetic markers known to be associated with increased risk of lung cancer. Changes or overproduction of some markers were found in a majority of the study participants.

The findings suggested that tobacco was not the only smoked substance that set the changes preceding lung cancer development in motion.

The study also showed that habitual smoking of tobacco, marijuana or crack cocaine in combination could potentially lead to more cancerous alterations in the molecular makeup of cellular structure than single-smoking alone.

Dr. Sanford Barsky, co-author of the study and a member of the University of California, Los Angeles' Jonnson Comprehensive Cancer Center, said he was not surprised by the findings. He said any substance that is inhaled, regardless of chemical makeup, releases carcinogens into the lungs and throat.

http://www.cannabisclub.ca/articles/1998_hall_lancet_1.pdf

See also:

Fligiel SEG, Roth MD, Kleerup EC, et al. Tracheobronchial histopathology in habitual smokers of cocaine, marijuana and/or tobacco. Chest 1997; 112: 319–26.

Robison LI, Buckley JD, Daigle AE, et al. Maternal drug use and the risk of childhood nonlympholastic leukemia among offspring: an epidemiologic investigation implicating marijuana. Cancer 1989; 63: 1904–11

Fried PA. Behavioural outcomes in preschool-aged children exposed prenatally to marijuana: a review and speculative interpretation. In: Wetherington CL, Smeriglio CL, Finnegan L, eds. Behavioural studies of drug exposed offspring: methodological issues in human and animal research. NIDA Research Monograph 164. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 1996.

Sridar KS, Raub WA, Weatherby NL, et al. Possible role of marijuana smoking as a carcinogen in the development of lung cancer at an early age. J Psychoactive Drugs 1994; 26: 285–88.

Caplan GA, Brigham BA. Marijuana smoking and carcinoma of the tongue. Is there an association? Cancer 1989; 66: 1005–06.


http://www.cannabisclub.ca/articles/1998_hall_lancet_1.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2649219&dopt=Abstract

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/1999/12/17/pot991217.html

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/16/1198

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/8/12/1071

http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/83/4/637.pdf


Please note that these are medical and scientific studies as opposed to the claims of "Jack Herer" (a man with no scientific credintials at all)

I didn't see where to contact him about collecting the 10K, but it is my bet that he will reneg on his offer.

[9sublime]

[QUOTE=palerider;3856]No problem. From the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

crack cocaine smokers who smoked one gram or more of crack cocaine a week for nine months or longer within the past year

The study also showed that habitual smoking of tobacco, marijuana or crack cocaine in combination could potentially lead to more cancerous alterations in the molecular makeup of cellular structure than single-smoking alone.


[QUOTE]

Yes, but crack cocaine can hardly be compared to marijuana.

Just out of interest, have you ever tried marajuana plaerider? I don't mean this in a patronizing way.

[Rokerijdude11]

No problem. From the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

In the study, researchers examined samples of respiratory tract tissue from participants who ranged in age from 21 to 50. To be eligible, the participants had to be in one or more of the following categories: Marijuana smokers who smoked an average of 10 or more marijuana cigarettes a week for the last five years or longer; crack cocaine smokers who smoked one gram or more of crack cocaine a week for nine months or longer within the past year; or tobacco smokers who smoked 20 cigarettes or more a day for the last five years.

The researchers looked at genetic markers known to be associated with increased risk of lung cancer. Changes or overproduction of some markers were found in a majority (NOT ALL MIND YOU)......of the study participants.

The findings suggested that tobacco was not the only smoked substance that set the changes preceding lung cancer development in motion.

The study also showed that habitual smoking of tobacco, marijuana or crack cocaine (waht ????) in combination could potentially lead to more cancerous alterations in the molecular makeup of cellular structure than single-smoking alone.

In other words.... if any, or all three, of these substances were used together.................there is a POSSIBILITY, that this MAY lead to more cancerous alterations.........Not if you smoke pot, If you smoke it, with the other substances too. IT MAY be more harmful....harldy conclusive anti marijuana evidence here

Dr. Sanford Barsky, co-author of the study and a member of the University of California, Los Angeles' Jonnson Comprehensive Cancer Center, said he was not surprised by the findings. He said any substance that is inhaled, regardless of chemical makeup, releases carcinogens into the lungs and throat.

http://www.cannabisclub.ca/articles/1998_hall_lancet_1.pdf

See also:

Fligiel SEG, Roth MD, Kleerup EC, et al. Tracheobronchial histopathology in habitual smokers of cocaine, marijuana and/or tobacco. Chest 1997; 112: 319–26.

Robison LI, Buckley JD, Daigle AE, et al. Maternal drug use and the risk of childhood nonlympholastic leukemia among offspring: an epidemiologic investigation implicating marijuana. Cancer 1989; 63: 1904–11

Im not suggesting anyone should smoke marijuana while they are carrying a unborn child so this is just some common sense here dosent prove anything..... btw again- may, could, possibly, all words that dont PROVE anything

Fried PA. Behavioural outcomes in preschool-aged children exposed prenatally to marijuana: a review and speculative interpretation. In: Wetherington CL, Smeriglio CL, Finnegan L, eds. Behavioural studies of drug exposed offspring: methodological issues in human and animal research. NIDA Research Monograph 164. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 1996.

Sridar KS, Raub WA, Weatherby NL, et al. Possible role of marijuana smoking as a carcinogen in the development of lung cancer at an early age. J Psychoactive Drugs 1994; 26: 285–88.

Caplan GA, Brigham BA. Marijuana smoking and carcinoma of the tongue. Is there an association? Cancer 1989; 66: 1005–06.


http://www.cannabisclub.ca/articles/1998_hall_lancet_1.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2649219&dopt=Abstract

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/1999/12/17/pot991217.html

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/16/1198

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/8/12/1071

http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/83/4/637.pdf


Please note that these are medical and scientific studies as opposed to the claims of "Jack Herer" (a man with no scientific credintials at all)

I didn't see where to contact him about collecting the 10K, but it is my bet that he will reneg on his offer.

No No go to jack herer tell him hes wrong about whatever it is you seem to think you have him on, and collect your money.....its quite simple The money is yours you have to PROVE, beyond the shadow of a doubt 100%....

That He is wrong and he will pay you ........why debate it with me? when all this money is on the line? I say your pretty much flat out WRONG!! Sorry buddy the stats above say it all PERIOD.... You take your lil blurb, and go collect the dough now.....................ohhhhh you cant because your wrong !!!

sorry Jack Herer is THE FOREMOST Authority on this subject!!
you are just some guy on the internet

all of his information comes from the federal government
Btw its a 100,000.00 challenge and here it is http://jackherer.com/index.html

[vyo476]

No No go to jack herer tell him hes wrong abot whatever it is you seem to think you have him on and collect your money.....its quite simple The money is yours you have to PRVE beyond the shadow of a doubt 100% that he is wrong and he will pay you ........why debate it with me when all this money is on the line i say your pretty much flat out WRONG sorry buddy the stats above say it all PERIOD you take your lil blurb and go collect the dough now.....................ohhhhh you cant because your wrong

sorry Jack Herer is THE FOREMOST Authority on this subject you are just some guy on the internet

Unfortunately, it is impossible to prove anything one hundred percent, beyond a shadow of a doubt, etc. That goes for such seemingly rudimentary things as proving that water is wet. I know, I know, major differences here, but the concept still applies - there will always be room for argument in everything and therefore Mr. Herer will never have to pay out that money.

[Rokerijdude11]

Unfortunately, it is impossible to prove anything one hundred percent, beyond a shadow of a doubt, etc. That goes for such seemingly rudimentary things as proving that water is wet. I know, I know, major differences here, but the concept still applies - there will always be room for argument in everything and therefore Mr. Herer will never have to pay out that money.

the challenge is in the link read it and if anyone can take the challenge do it Jak Herer is the Authority on this period

[Everylyric]

Unfortunately, it is impossible to prove anything one hundred percent, beyond a shadow of a doubt, etc. That goes for such seemingly rudimentary things as proving that water is wet. I know, I know, major differences here, but the concept still applies - there will always be room for argument in everything and therefore Mr. Herer will never have to pay out that money.

It is possible to prove things one hundred percent.

[vyo476]

It is possible to prove things one hundred percent.

How is it possible to prove things one hundred percent?

[9sublime]

A big problem with pot being illegal, and even more so with other drugs is that they are unstandardised.

Nobody knows the strength, and the average user just does it by smell until they actually take the stuff and then there is no way back.

If alcohol was illegal, smell would be the only way to judge it, and that would be pretty dangerous.

If drugs like heroin were standardised before they hit the streets overdoes rates would be almost nothing compared to now.

[Grounded]

How is it possible to prove things one hundred percent?

There are tautologies. They are true by the fact that they are true.

For example, let there be a variable: a.

a = a is true by definition. We can prove it 100%.

It's like saying that an ipod is an ipod by definition. We assigned the definition, so it must be true.

[Grounded]

A big problem with pot being illegal, and even more so with other drugs is that they are unstandardised.

Nobody knows the strength, and the average user just does it by smell until they actually take the stuff and then there is no way back.

If alcohol was illegal, smell would be the only way to judge it, and that would be pretty dangerous.

If drugs like heroin were standardised before they hit the streets overdoes rates would be almost nothing compared to now.

What do you mean by standardized?

[Rokerijdude11]

The only differences in Marijuana that means anything, are the Strains of the plant being smoked. Many strains have been bred particularly for medicinal usage. They contain thc levels SOMETIMES in the 25-30 % range....


Average MJ is in the 15-20% bracket.. All that this means, is that the Medicinal plants contain more of the active THC than theyre cousins. In effect they are stronger ,or more concentrated ....which only means, it takes less harmful smoke in your lungs to achieve the maximum Medicinal benefits.....or the fastest Buzz if you are a recreational user..this lessens the need to be smoking so much plant material.

these strains were originally intended for Medicinal use.
They have found theyre way into the mainstream, with BC buds, and many other well known strains..marijuana has gotten better, by being more concentrated....this concentration does NOT affect the overall makeup of the plant. However it does improve the plants flowers, just like one would do in an garden.



Grounded; You obviously dont know much about this issue by the nature of your response......you CANNOT tell squat by Smelling anything....you can tell how potent it is, by the calyx ratio, and how many visible crystals, there are on the buds ....you can smoke the strongest medicinal weed, and all that will happen is youll get stoned 3 times FASTER ,and need 3 times LESS weed , in order to get there.....



What many of you will need to get past, is first the LIES of Prohibition..... go ahead read the chapters at jacks site the emporer wears no clothes what are you afraid of?

2.You will need to learn to differentiate between Hemp, and Marijuana.

3. You will then need to differentiate between Medicinal use, and recreational Use

4. You will have to get past 60 year old rhetorics

5. Then take a look at the Dutch Drug policy, and its success rate....

many of you have a LOT to learn to even begin to try and debate this issue

[9sublime]

When you buy the stuff you don't usually go test the caylx ratio you just smoke it. So you quickly try to tell its potencey by its visible crystals, and its smell, which are both very innaccurate.

And when you pick up some cannabis, you don't know what strain you are getting a lot of the time, or its THC content so you just smoke it and hope it does the trick.

If you bought it from a pharamacy, you would know what strength you are getting because it is standardized. This would be more useful with drugs on which you can easily overdoes like heroin though.

[Rokerijdude11]

there is no way to "standardize" as your dealing with a plant there are far too many variables involved for such a thing even with the same genetics and conditions three growers will turn out three different products
calx ratio is easy to see in high grade buds as you can tell by looking at the buds themselves agreed you dont know if your getting 10% thc or 30

well where i am from and at my point in the ball game i always know what strain im dealing with. But then Ive been involved with the plant and its use for over 30 years
and have been associated with some of the worlds best growers and learned from some of the best in the world I have actually smoked with jacke herer on a few occaisions while in amsterdam

the closest youll get to standardization is guaranteed strains and theyre associated charecteristics, similar to what you describe but because we are dealing with plants and different growers the results will always vary


unless of course you want to go the way ou food has gone and allow intensive research and develpoment to even further geneticall alter the plant but if your going to all of that bother you need to just change your thinking



and learn to wrap your head around Ice Water Hasj or "Bubble hasj" as its copied version is called this method removes all of the plant material and leaves JUST the trichomes afterwards leaving you 70-95% pure THC this is the strobgest most reliable method of regulating THC intake that im aware of it eliminates the question marks of the plant material itself leaving just the potency of the thc itself


you would have a far better chance of having the percentage that way I am not for the genetic altering of the plant beyond Breeding new strains....i think messing with the genetic make-up to try to acieve a standard is just not realistic

then you might as well take the New Pills or lozenges or sprays being tried By G.W. Pharmecueticals out of england they are currently conducting clinical trials for a replacement for marinol the current pill form

which BTW does NOT have the success rate that normal Mj and medicinal Mj do suggesting a difference in the manner of introduction...marinol is widely reported as Un reliable and not working well for its paitients

[9sublime]

Yeah well when I was a regular user the area where I live never had a consistent supply, and so you got different strains every week. But at least THC content could be tested and you would know for sure before you bought the stuff from a pharamacy.

Anyway, this wouldn't be that useful with cannabis, because if its too powerful all you're gunna do is be sick and pass out ha!

[palerider]

Yes, but crack cocaine can hardly be compared to marijuana.

True, but the study clearly stated that pot alone was highly suspect as well. And then there are the rest of the scientific studies that I posted.

Just out of interest, have you ever tried marajuana plaerider? I don't mean this in a patronizing way.

Yes I have. I was a child of the 60's. But because I did a thing, does not mean that I am prevented from learning from it. A great deal of research has been done and the fact is that a very large body of evidence is coming forward that suggests very strongly that pot can cause cancer of the head and neck and the lungs.

[palerider]

sorry Jack Herer is THE FOREMOST Authority on this subject!!
you are just some guy on the internet

Describe Jack's credentials and the scientific studies and papers that he has written. I have looked as much as possible on the internet and can find no evidence of him recieving any higher education at all, unless smoking dope constitutes "higher" education. When we are discussing the physiological effects of various chemical compounds upon living tissue and the possible ramifications of those effects, a man with no education on the subject can hardly be called the "FOREMOST" authority. In fact, in the face of any one of these papers conducted by medical doctors, and phD's in various bodies of hard science, the opinion of Jack Herer is inconsequential to the point of being completely irrelavent.

Don't even begin to try and argue that Jack Herer knows more about the effect of chemicals on the human body than the doctors in any one of the dozen or so credible scientific sources I cited.

all of his information comes from the federal government


Sorry guy, it would be tough for you to be more wrong.

This one comes from the Lancet. One of the foremost medical journals in the world. Second only to the New England Journal of medicine.

http://www.cannabisclub.ca/articles/...l_lancet_1.pdf

This one is from a medical journal dealing with cancer, not the government.

Fligiel SEG, Roth MD, Kleerup EC, et al. Tracheobronchial histopathology in habitual smokers of cocaine, marijuana and/or tobacco. Chest 1997; 112: 319–26.

This one is from an oncological (cancer) medical journal, not the government.

Robison LI, Buckley JD, Daigle AE, et al. Maternal drug use and the risk of childhood nonlympholastic leukemia among offspring: an epidemiologic investigation implicating marijuana. Cancer 1989; 63: 1904–11

This one is from a medical journal dealing specifically with the use and effects of drugs, not the government.

Sridar KS, Raub WA, Weatherby NL, et al. Possible role of marijuana smoking as a carcinogen in the development of lung cancer at an early age. J Psychoactive Drugs 1994; 26: 285–88.

This one is from an oncological medical journal, not the government.

Caplan GA, Brigham BA. Marijuana smoking and carcinoma of the tongue. Is there an association? Cancer 1989; 66: 1005–06.

The research posted on "pub med" is not government research even though the address is pubmed.gov. Pub med is simply a central clearing house for independent research dissimination among the world medical and research community. pubmed.gov does no research on their own and publishes nothing on their own.

This one is published by the Oxford Medical Journal.

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/c...act/90/16/1198

This one is from the American Association for Cancer Research. Again, not a government organization.

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/con...ract/8/12/1071

And this one is also from the Oxford Medical Journal.

http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/83/4/637.pdf


In fact, I don't believe anything that I listed represents government research. But if all I posted was government research, your argument that information is not valid just because it comes from the government constitutes an ad hominem circumstantial attack and would not be a valid argument. Information can not be discounted based on nothing more than the source.

[9sublime]

But as a former user, you must know that pot is quite a low level psychoactive it terms of its effects and addictive properties compared to crack cocaine?

And so any study that combines results is not going to be the most accurate when it comes to pot?

The fact is that the US and UK drug policies do not work very effectivley, while the Dutch have done much better. And the zero tolerance level on hard drugs isn't working because if I wanted cocaine, ecstasy, marijuana, ketamin etc. I could very easily get it, and have been able to since I was about 13 and I live in a small countryside town.

[palerider]

Rokerijdude11, I want you to take a look at the stuff you have posted as evidence for your case. Most of it is 20 years old. Medical research has come a long way since then. The fact is that a large (and growing) body of evidence is putting the lie to the myth that pot is harmless.

[palerider]

But as a former user, you must know that pot is quite a low level psychoactive it terms of its effects and addictive properties compared to crack cocaine?

The issue isn't how high you get, the issue is that pot isn't the "harmless" plant that it has been made out to be.

And so any study that combines results is not going to be the most accurate when it comes to pot?

Review the studies I listed. The bulk of them are on pot alone.

The fact is that the US and UK drug policies do not work very effectivley, while the Dutch have done much better. And the zero tolerance level on hard drugs isn't working because if I wanted cocaine, ecstasy, marijuana, ketamin etc. I could very easily get it, and have been able to since I was about 13 and I live in a small countryside town.

The dutch are growing some very serious, and expensive, social problems of their own as a result of their decisions. Junkies are flooding holland from all over europe and they aren't coming there because they have postitive contributions to make to the country.

And just because it is possible to skirt the law and do a thing is not a valid reason for making a thing legal.

[9sublime]

If everywhere followed the same route as Holland, the Dutch wouldn't have to bear the brunt of all these junkies.

[Rokerijdude11]

Describe Jack's credentials and the scientific studies and papers that he has written. I have looked as much as possible on the internet and can find no evidence of him recieving any higher education at all, unless smoking dope constitutes "higher" education. When we are discussing the physiological effects of various chemical compounds upon living tissue and the possible ramifications of those effects, a man with no education on the subject can hardly be called the "FOREMOST" authority. In fact, in the face of any one of these papers conducted by medical doctors, and phD's in various bodies of hard science, the opinion of Jack Herer is inconsequential to the point of being completely irrelavent.

Don't even begin to try and argue that Jack Herer knows more about the effect of chemicals on the human body than the doctors in any one of the dozen or so credible scientific sources I cited.



Sorry guy, it would be tough for you to be more wrong.

This one comes from the Lancet. One of the foremost medical journals in the world. Second only to the New England Journal of medicine.

http://www.cannabisclub.ca/articles/...l_lancet_1.pdf

This one is from a medical journal dealing with cancer, not the government.

Fligiel SEG, Roth MD, Kleerup EC, et al. Tracheobronchial histopathology in habitual smokers of cocaine, marijuana and/or tobacco. Chest 1997; 112: 319–26.

This one is from an oncological (cancer) medical journal, not the government.

Robison LI, Buckley JD, Daigle AE, et al. Maternal drug use and the risk of childhood nonlympholastic leukemia among offspring: an epidemiologic investigation implicating marijuana. Cancer 1989; 63: 1904–11

This one is from a medical journal dealing specifically with the use and effects of drugs, not the government.

Sridar KS, Raub WA, Weatherby NL, et al. Possible role of marijuana smoking as a carcinogen in the development of lung cancer at an early age. J Psychoactive Drugs 1994; 26: 285–88.

This one is from an oncological medical journal, not the government.

Caplan GA, Brigham BA. Marijuana smoking and carcinoma of the tongue. Is there an association? Cancer 1989; 66: 1005–06.

The research posted on "pub med" is not government research even though the address is pubmed.gov. Pub med is simply a central clearing house for independent research dissimination among the world medical and research community. pubmed.gov does no research on their own and publishes nothing on their own.

This one is published by the Oxford Medical Journal.

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/c...act/90/16/1198

This one is from the American Association for Cancer Research. Again, not a government organization.

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/con...ract/8/12/1071

And this one is also from the Oxford Medical Journal.

http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/83/4/637.pdf


In fact, I don't believe anything that I listed represents government research. But if all I posted was government research, your argument that information is not valid just because it comes from the government constitutes an ad hominem circumstantial attack and would not be a valid argument. Information can not be discounted based on nothing more than the source.
Dont bother wasting your breath debating me.... I dont have $100,000.00 to give to you if you win.Jack Does!! Go on big guy go collect it.......Jack Himself stated this in his challenge , that is where he gets his information.
apparently you didnt bother to read it...? The challenge is clear, read it and then collect if you can! but you cant..
and you wont.

Instead youll continue to impress yourself with your writing skill. and youll try to impart your flawwed Opinion
upon myself and others. if you are SO CONVINCED that you know more and better than Jack By all means go collect your cash.Dont waste valuable resources trying to convince me. Im a living 30 some odd year experiment




Nothing you can say will change my views NOTHING....thats just the way it is,Ill tell you though your welcome to be all you can be .take the challenge collect the dough show us how wrong i am by doing that

[Rokerijdude11]

Rokerijdude11, I want you to take a look at the stuff you have posted as evidence for your case. Most of it is 20 years old. Medical research has come a long way since then. The fact is that a large (and growing) body of evidence is putting the lie to the myth that pot is harmless.

Its quite allright much of the evidence most people post is old ........why? because there are NO sanctioned governement studies to base them on. i dont buy any of the hype Im walking breathing living proof. that all of this is Crap,Im a 30+ yrs daily smoker....health is fine no cancers, i dont do any hard drugs, i dont drink,dont smoke tobacco,dont have memory loss,have an above average I.Q., am productive member in society..

[Rokerijdude11]

If everywhere followed the same route as Holland, the Dutch wouldn't have to bear the brunt of all these junkies.

this is a fallacy....I have been to the netherlands every year since 1990 there are no more junkies on the streets like there USED to be in the early 90,s. The problem has been addressed fairly well do they have a fair share of junkies? perhaps junkies looking to try and get off of smack as the netherlands works with theyre junkies to try and help them get clean

[9sublime]

The dutch are growing some very serious, and expensive, social problems of their own as a result of their decisions. Junkies are flooding holland from all over europe and they aren't coming there because they have postitive contributions to make to the country.


I was saying this in response to this comment. If we all had the same drug policy as the Dutch, then they wouldn't all go to Holland like palerider says.

[palerider]

Nothing you can say will change my views NOTHING....thats just the way it is,Ill tell you though your welcome to be all you can be .take the challenge collect the dough show us how wrong i am by doing that

Of course nothing will change your views. They are based in faith rather than any scientific evidence and I am not going to try and make you give up your faith.

And jack is full of crap. He will never pay.

[palerider]

Its quite allright much of the evidence most people post is old ........why? because there are NO sanctioned governement studies to base them on. i dont buy any of the hype Im walking breathing living proof. that all of this is Crap,Im a 30+ yrs daily smoker....health is fine no cancers, i dont do any hard drugs, i dont drink,dont smoke tobacco,dont have memory loss,have an above average I.Q., am productive member in society..

And I had been away from the military for almost 30 years when I developed cancer as the result of exposure to chemicals in the military. For a very long time, I thought that I could say that I was walking, breathing, living proof that being the danger of military exposure to chemicals was hype as well. You don't get to say that you are proof of anyting until you know. At present, you don't know and any suggestion that you do is fantasy.

The evidence is growing all the time that you are quite simply, wrong.

One other thing. I won't dispute that you have a higher than average IQ. My bet is that most of the people here do. But having a high IQ isn't protection from doing things that are less than bright. Placing your faith in jack's opinion above credible scientific evidence is one of those things. Jack has no education that would lend him any credibility in a scientific discussion about the dangers of smoking anything. He is like the 90 year old that has smoked 3 packs of non filtered camels since he was 12 telling us that smoking cigarettes doesn't cause cancer. Admittedly, it didn't cause cancer in him, but that doesn't represent any proof at all that smoking doesn't cause cancer. Just as the fact that you don't have cancer yet is only proof that you don't have cancer yet and nothing more.

[Rokerijdude11]

Actually being that you have no sanctioned studies to support you, any further than i do..... quite simply your wrong.I see you have still yet to collect the money from Jack instead you decided you will try and impress people with YOUR OPINIONS rather than address jack with the facts.why because you simply dont have these facts. or else you would be famous which you arent as here you are wasting valuable time with ME !!!


Being harmed by chemical agents, designed to Kill things is in no way, a fair Comparison to smoking some pot.Im not placing my faith in Jack.........


I have LIVED the life, my WHOLE life, I am completly able to speak on the issue myself, without any input of Jacks. As i say Im a living experiment that stands to the testament, that the lies they propogate are BUNK SCIENCE!!

They havent been scientifically studied at all, the US Government dosent allow that experimentation......it would completly expose them for theyre lies.....i have no cancers, no ill health, no tumors, no memory loss (except maybe when im REALLY Baked)......I havent migrated over to cocaine ,extasy, and heroin.....Nor do i do ANY hard drugs...........

I only occaionally drink and then only mageritas!!! I have held a succesful Job, in a high tech, hi paced environment for years.Ive raised a family, all of the above while smoking pot!! and to this day not one ill effect, no addictions ,and no migration to hard drugs..

i am active in political reform for marijuana legalization. i have studied the Dutch model, as well as having travelled to Amsterdam more than a dozen times...



I am active in the medicinal Mj movement as well, and am well connected to some heavy players in all of these areas. As i say i have LIVED the life, MY WHOLE life ....NOTHING you can produce, will alleviate the FACTS that concern the issues....comparing the effects of defoliants inhaled 30 yrs ago to smoking pot is CRAZY speak!!

frankly its you who is wrong,and you cant see the forest through the trees.

[9sublime]

i have no cancers, no ill health, no tumors, no memory loss (except maybe when im REALLY Baked)......I havent migrated over to cocaine ,extasy, and heroin.....Nor do i do ANY hard drugs...........

I only occaionally drink and then only mageritas!!! I have held a succesful Job, in a high tech, hi paced environment for years.Ive raised a family, all of the above while smoking pot!! and to this day not one ill effect, no addictions ,and no migration to hard drugs..


"I never raped anybody, never killed anybody, laughed my ASS off and went about my day!"
- some famous comedian whos name I can't find on him doing drugs.

The only real media attention drugs get is the bad stuff because it makes good news.

An estimated 500,000 people take ecstasy in the UK every weekend, and only6 have died in 10 years from ecstasy posining in the last 10 years, and another 81 from ectasy related death (lethal cocktails, dehydration, too much fluid to the brain). That means that 91 people have died from ecstasy in 10 years out of the

500,000 a week x 4 weeks x 12 months x 10 years = 240,000,000 times people have taken ecstasy, only 91 have died in the UK. I'm sure more people have died from over the counter methadone than that, so why isn't it legal so people know whats it cut with?

Ecstasy and coke are the most commonly used drugs in which people can have no idea what is in it, making it potentially unsafe to take it. If pills were made by the government, people would know the strength of them and that they were pure resulting in less deaths.

[palerider]

I am active in the medicinal Mj movement as well, and am well connected to some heavy players in all of these areas. As i say i have LIVED the life, MY WHOLE life ....NOTHING you can produce, will alleviate the FACTS that concern the issues....comparing the effects of defoliants inhaled 30 yrs ago to smoking pot is CRAZY speak!!

frankly its you who is wrong,and you cant see the forest through the trees.

You are an anecdote Rokerijdude, nothing more.

And I wasn't comparing the effects of defoliants to pot use. I was pointing out that I didn't have cancer either, until I did. Simple as that. Right up till the time I was diagnosed, I could point at the studies that said that agent orange could cause cancer and dismiss them because I didn't have cancer...yet.

At this point, the best you can do is say that pot hasn't given you cancer...yet. The body of science is growing all the time and to suggest that because we can't experiment on people, we will never know is clear evidence that you don't know much about modern research techniques. We know all sorts of things can cause cancer without doing human experiments.

And jack is a meaningless side issue here. He is a know nothing with a big mouth. He will never pay his bet exactly because he is a no nothing with a big mouth.

[Rokerijdude11]

well at this point based on your theory......I could have also developed cancer from simply breathing in our polluted air.
I find the comparison acceptable as the air we breathe is Hella polluted and im sure that given time enough we will also be able to prove that Breathing causes cancer


Or drinking filtered water or eating organically grown spinach.
I mean where shall we stop? I possibly could have developed cancer from eating too much Cauliflower,we just dont know as of yet because the studies have been done yet to support this.

the air we breathe sitting in traffic stopped in a traffic jam or at a light in a crowded city are certainly more caustic and possibly cancer causing......the actuality is there is SUBSTANTIAL proof that car exhaust can and does cause cancer



based on the current argument then we should outlaw automoblies...as well as cauliflower and hell maybe we should even restrict the use of filtered water to those over 18 yrs of age?


yes there are many many things that COULD possibly be causing cancer maybe we should identify them all villanize them lie about the results and the Prohibit them?


there havent been ANY United States Government supported research cases with marijuana whether animal or man the Feds wont allow it to happen any research they are using to support theyre theory is second hand info from other source countries

Jack is EXTREMLY Knowledgable and very Intelligent your off handed assesments of a man whom youve never spent time with is useless drivel...it is simply more of YOUR OPINION while your welcomed to it so am i allowed my own opinion and before i touch on it ill say this one should never cast stones when one does not know where they are being cast....


quite simply Jack Herer Is VERY WELL KNOWN and widely regarded as the AUTHORITY on the Prohibition of Hemp and Marijauana he is an activist hes well spoken well read and has written other things besides the emporer wears no clothes I have met him and spent time with him


I have studied his writings and philosophy of the prohibition Of Mj and Hemp I have Lived the life all my life and frankly sir its YOU who is the "Know" Nothing

see how its spelled? Know Nothing Big Mouth at this point appears to be YOU ....you have dismally failed in your attempt at overbearing this conversation quite simply because you really dont know what your talking about and your in way over your head thats why you have resorted to personally attacking my friend Jack

you have shown your true colors Mr Know Nothing

[Rokerijdude11]

"I never raped anybody, never killed anybody, laughed my ASS off and went about my day!"
- some famous comedian whos name I can't find on him doing drugs.

The only real media attention drugs get is the bad stuff because it makes good news.

An estimated 500,000 people take ecstasy in the UK every weekend, and only6 have died in 10 years from ecstasy posining in the last 10 years, and another 81 from ectasy related death (lethal cocktails, dehydration, too much fluid to the brain). That means that 91 people have died from ecstasy in 10 years out of the

500,000 a week x 4 weeks x 12 months x 10 years = 240,000,000 times people have taken ecstasy, only 91 have died in the UK. I'm sure more people have died from over the counter methadone than that, so why isn't it legal so people know whats it cut with?

Ecstasy and coke are the most commonly used drugs in which people can have no idea what is in it, making it potentially unsafe to take it. If pills were made by the government, people would know the strength of them and that they were pure resulting in less deaths.

Xtacy and cocaine .............................

Have Absolutly NOTHING to do with Marijuana?
whats your point?

[palerider]

Jack is EXTREMLY Knowledgable and very Intelligent your off handed assesments of a man whom youve never spent time with is useless drivel...it is simply more of YOUR OPINION while your welcomed to it so am i allowed my own opinion and before i touch on it ill say this one should never cast stones when one does not know where they are being cast....

Jack is an uneducated activist who doesn't even acknowledge that a growing body of research is indicating very strongly that he is wrong.


quite simply Jack Herer Is VERY WELL KNOWN and widely regarded as the AUTHORITY on the Prohibition of Hemp and Marijauana he is an activist hes well spoken well read and has written other things besides the emporer wears no clothes I have met him and spent time with him

Jack's "professional" opinion on the dangers of pot are about as valid as barbara streisand's "professional" opinion on global warming.


I have studied his writings and philosophy of the prohibition Of Mj and Hemp I have Lived the life all my life and frankly sir its YOU who is the "Know" Nothing

A philosophy that doesn't acknowledge a growing body of valid scientific research that is challenging everything he says is hardly a valid philosophy. Unless you consider flat earthers valid.

[9sublime]

Xtacy and cocaine .............................

Have Absolutly NOTHING to do with Marijuana?
whats your point?

Just saying that the media highlight the dangers of drugs when more people probably die from perscription drugs than ecstasy. Expanding the debait, if you will.

[Rokerijdude11]

Jack is an uneducated activist who doesn't even acknowledge that a growing body of research is indicating very strongly that he is wrong.

Oh really? when was the last time you talked to Jack? I mean you seem to know so so much about him? Un-Educated!!!..hardly your lack of any type of actual responses, is a testament to your shortcomings when it comes to this subject....You may be well versed, and educated in some areas. Ill give you that. But this is NOT one of those areas!! .As The readers can clearly see, you have simply been reduced to, Attacking a man whom you dont even know..............He is wrong you say?.........on which one of the hundreds of points, and information that are contained within the book?


Let me directly ask you...........HAVE YOU READ THE BOOK THE EMPORER WEARS NO CLOTHES?

Not parts of it,..... not paragraphs of it,....... not the introduction .....Have you read the book? The answer is completly obvious, by your rambling nonsensical answers.......the Only Uneducated man in this thread at this point appears to be YOU....Im sorry but thats how its shaping up with each post


Jack's "professional" opinion on the dangers of pot are about as valid as barbara streisand's "professional" opinion on global warming.

No actually Jacks opinions are based On Real life experience as well as US government Information and documentation as well as ,Several sanctioned actual REAL TIME studies done in other countries... Jacks information concerning the lies that catapaulted the prohibition of Mj and Hemp is Non debatable it is documented and well proven.....his work regarding the issue of hemp saving the world is un-parralelled


its only the sheep who buy into the rhetorics who dont see the obviousness of what has been done in this country.we havent even scratched the surface of this. because you arent educated enough to get past the jack dosent know **** part of the program..when you actually THINK you have a grasp on this and want to actually TRY and debate me on the "dangers" of marijuana you let me know


as of this time you are woefully Un-educated and therefore Un-able to debate.I completly understand. its ok not to know everything gimme a shout when you THINK you may be ready ok?


A philosophy that doesn't acknowledge a growing body of valid scientific research that is challenging everything he says is hardly a valid philosophy. Unless you consider flat earthers valid.

again your Ignorance of the realities of what Jack has writtent about surfaces like a slug in a heavy rain storm. So Now ill ask you again? have you spoken to Jack recently? Im not so sure this last statement of yours holds any truth at all? and as we can clearly see you are Un-able to take Jacks Challenge......its a shame actually I really enjoy it when you flat earthers try and assert yourselves but then shrink from direct challenge...Instead you have decided to argue with "some guy" on a website.....it goes a long way to showing us how un-educated you really are on this particular subject



As i say i find you to be fairly well educated on many subjects and enjoy most of what you write But on this particular subject your just embarrassing yourself.....
whenever you want to get past the Jack dosent know **** stage and you want to really delve into the meat of this let me know Id suggest you readt the book beforehand though

its the only way you are going to learn anything of truth

come back later wwhen you can actually attempt a debate at this point all you are doing is trying to assert yourself and insulting someone whom you dont even know and who cant re-but your Insultuos manners....it goes way way beyond smoking some pot to catch a buzz saprky

soo soo much deeper wake up and take a good look sparky

[Rokerijdude11]

Just saying that the media highlight the dangers of drugs when more people probably die from perscription drugs than ecstasy. Expanding the debait, if you will.

sorry i follow your angle now thanks for clarification

[9sublime]

No worries. Never actually taken ecstasy myself though. Are you still a regular user of cannabis roker?

[Rokerijdude11]

ive smoked pot every day basically since sometime in summer 1976 there were some exceptions of course there was a few years i set it aside as i was a jet engine mechanic and Aircrewman on a Naval S.A. R. squadron based in guam

Yes i smoke daily as i say i have no other vices im not a beer drinker dont do any other drugs i havent tried extacy either or heroin or ghb i did try cocaine a few times in the early 80s not my gig..i also experimented with some LSD in the late seventies just before my Naval enlistment

since returning from overseas i havent done any drugs other than getting high.........well i ate some mushrooms in Amsterdam back in 2000 just to see what that was all about

there are appropriate times to get high and others to be straight i have been smoking long enough to differentiate between the two....im not out riding or driving while getting stoned although there have been times i have had to drive while stoned in my 30+ years of smoking


i do not make it a habit..I dont get high before or during work.generally after 4;20 in the afternoon when business has been completed for the day...dont get high in front of my kids or with them.

so far my open attitude with my kids has worked just fine my 25 yr old does not get high.she tried it for a while and then stopped my 18 year old has gone through 3 stages now and currently is on a no smoke regimen

i dont preach to them and they not to me I dont smoke tobacco although i did for some almost 30 years i have been nicotine free for almost 3 yrs now so yes in the eveining while most folks are having a beer or a glass of wine and relaxing i am smoking a bowl and relaxing


there was a time when it was everything to me and I probably should have had more restraint but overall it hasnt really hampered my ability to live life although recently the laws and insurance companies have gotten ferverent and are making it almost impossible for one to pull off what i have all my life


drug testing is prevalent in all walks of life even if you own your own business the insurance comapny will still nail you even the Unions relented and let insurance companies
dicttate how company policy is written


It is no longer good enough that you only do these things on your "OFF" time .they dont care.they want you towing the line regardless its a fabulous marriage of corporations/Government/Insurance they control what and how we do everything

In todays world its Much more difficult to do what i have done
and Quite frankly NOT ALL PEOPLE are able to Use marijuana responsibly and for that reason its Not for everybody.It works for me it quite possibly will not for you
or others you know it is truly an individual choice and these days not one to be taken lightly


I do not suggest that it is ok for children to use it,or pregnat women ,or those with complications of the respiratory system unless they are using medicinally and compensating for such

there are 3 distinct areas that all relate when it comes to marijuana Recreational,Medicinal, and then the hemp cousin plant and its Industrial uses.....sorry for such a long response.....this is a subject that i am VERY VERY well educated in and i tend to ramble on my soapbox

[palerider]

Just saying that the media highlight the dangers of drugs when more people probably die from perscription drugs than ecstasy. Expanding the debait, if you will.


Of course, people who die from Rx drugs are already experiencing health problems.

[palerider]

Oh really? when was the last time you talked to Jack? I mean you seem to know so so much about him? Un-Educated!!!..hardly your lack of any type of actual responses, is a testament to your shortcomings when it comes to this subject....You may be well versed, and educated in some areas. Ill give you that. But this is NOT one of those areas!! .As The readers can clearly see, you have simply been reduced to, Attacking a man whom you dont even know..............He is wrong you say?.........on which one of the hundreds of points, and information that are contained within the book?

I asked you to describe his education. You didn't. He doesn't describe any education on his site. If he were educated, don't you think he would mention it? You have suggested that a man who apparently doesn't even have an associates degree is the foremost authority on this subject in the face of teams of doctors and research scientists who say that pot is dangerous.

How credible do you think that this makes your argument?

[Rokerijdude11]

I asked you to describe his education. You didn't. He doesn't describe any education on his site. If he were educated, don't you think he would mention it? You have suggested that a man who apparently doesn't even have an associates degree is the foremost authority on this subject in the face of teams of doctors and research scientists who say that pot is dangerous.

How credible do you think that this makes your argument?

Read the book ..show me ANYONE anywhere that is more knowlwedgable on these Subjects than Jack Herer....READ THE BOOK.........youll change your tune i know you will.I have read enough of your stuff and see where you stand on things YOU NEED to read the book.........then your Answers will be revealed......

you have YET to SHOW US ANY scientist or doctors who have Proven any of what Jack says is wrong.........you talk about them but then you cannot produce the PROOF required its Ok I Understand and i know why

Read the Book and then try again your really ineffectual in this debate...your ass is hangin in the breeze so to speak.Sorry this is not one of your areas of expertise im afraid

[Rokerijdude11]

A philosophy that doesn't acknowledge a growing body of valid scientific research that is challenging everything he says is hardly a valid philosophy. Unless you consider flat earthers valid.

"challenging everything he says"? Man im so positive now that you have never read the book, and really have NO real idea what jack says, and dosent say. Yet here you are spewing about as if you Know something...listen pops you really dont have clue....go ahead then and quit asserting yourself here GO COLLECT THE CASH.................or simply go and read the book you dont know what your talking about its obvious by your responses

[PLC1]

ive smoked pot every day basically since sometime in summer 1976 there were some exceptions of course there was a few years i set it aside as i was a jet engine mechanic and Aircrewman on a Naval S.A. R. squadron based in guam



Did you used to use capital letters and punctuation before smoking pot so much? Just curious.:p

Smoking pot is a bad idea, but outlawing it is a worse one. Prohibition of cannibis hasn't worked any better than prohibition of alcohol, and has created some of the same problems.

We should legalize it and tax it to pay for the social ills it creates, but we won't. Any pol who seriously suggests legalization, and has a chance of passing it, would be the political target of the right wing. Should the right wing miss, then they would be come the physical target of the drug kingpins.

Legalization? Fugitaboutid.

[vyo476]

Did you used to use capital letters and punctuation before smoking pot so much? Just curious.:p


I think we've been over this...

[palerider]

We should legalize it and tax it to pay for the social ills it creates, but we won't. Any pol who seriously suggests legalization, and has a chance of passing it, would be the political target of the right wing. Should the right wing miss, then they would be come the physical target of the drug kingpins.



Legalize it and use the tax revenue to pay for the problems that legalizing it will cause. Can you tell me exactly what sort of logic that is?

[Rokerijdude11]

Did you used to use capital letters and punctuation before smoking pot so much? Just curious.:p

Duhhhhh..