Should marijuana be legalized?

Should we legalize it?

  • Yes

    Votes: 52 73.2%
  • No

    Votes: 19 26.8%

  • Total voters
    71
I have posted the info from NIDA above. footnotes if you care to hit the library and look at the data.

The burden of proof is well met.


No it hasnt.......the NIDA report is ANYTHING but conclusive hard evidence Im sorry?


You've continually used the fact that "science says CAN cause, MAY cause, etc." as proof of there being no proof. This is incorrect. "It can cause [in some cases]," is a more definitive statement on the intent of the words "possible/can/may." The primary factor being that in studies ON humans these harmful effects HAVE occurred in prevalence.



Like i say if its conclusive, and They have PROVEN it... why the ambiguatory verbage? Why not seal it tight with definitive verbage, that spells it out as Evidentry ,conclusive data? like the federal Government ALWAYS does?
Because it isnt evidentry, or conclusive, it states that these possibilities Exist ...and at some point in time, somehwere, they may have actually happened...It does not support the claim, that it is a harmful substance, it supports the theory....... that IT MAY be a HARMFUL substance





The study where people were given THC PO or if they smoked it, it's not really that different. The active agent exists in both manner of ingestion. It's metabolized the same way by the body.


it does matter completly....the reasons for this are obvious .and as well, they convieniently skip ove,r what dosage was given....what was in the pill, other than THC . and the concentration levels of an ingested thc dosage are COMPLETLY different. As well anyone who has been at this as long as I have ,Knows the HUGE difference between eating marijuana, or marijauana based cookies ,cakes, etc is Entirely a different High, and entirely a different situation. Eating anything containing THC, is far MORE powerful on the Body ...Anyone who has eaten pot brownies, cookies, etc, or space cakes, made with hashish Knows they are far MORE potent, in the active High, and symptoms...,

so first of all by INGESTING this anonymous pill, which we know nothing about its dosage ,what else it may have contained etc,.......we already know the effects will be more powerfull than smoking several Joints, this is proven and documented....and as well I through personal experience, know this to be a fact


If THC causes psychosis in those tests, then THC ingested via smoking any form of the drug that contains THC will assert the same effects.

[color]Not necessarily, as FAR MORE pot would need to be smoked, to get anywhere NEAR the same type of dosage, and even then, as i stated above smoking, and ingesting marijuana are COMPLETLY DIFFERENT.........Neither you, or NIDA, or anyone else has provided hard documented facts, on the so-called psycosis .....i say its what is known as being STONED....... not psycosis at all...,

i await the PROOF on this aspect as well ,
and am interested in wht the psycosis defenitions were, for the reported case? this information, as well as dosage are completly releveant, and convieniently left out of the report
[/color]


The proof exists you just exhibit a rather high amount of cognitive bias that doesn't allow you see the evidence for what it is. This argument is boring me since you refuse to accept any data that is availible.


Not so boring as you just keep on posting...
and continue to ignore my repeated requests for something of a hard factual nature???so far you have YET to provide it...Not even the NIDA report is conclusive? why is that? because thy are not being honest thats why


You issue arguments when you feel the data can be pigeonholed, but if it cannot you tend to digress to a conspiracy theory about the data. You contend that NIDA is federally funded so any seemingly obvious facts are to not be believed due to the fact the government has a hand in it. Your constant chiding of the Coulds and Possiblys is tiring.

NIDA hasnt met the burden of proof either???? the Federal Government is exactly why Marijuana is Prohibited they know the truth ....they are the ones who started the Lies in 1937 you seem to ignore the facts surrounding Prohibition of hemp and marijuana ...for if you understood the who and why ,you would understand the questionability of NIDA reprt


Not to mention The US FEDERAL GOVT will NOT ALLOW testing in this country, and havent for some years? how can they be so conclusive, when they dont allow it to be studied???
[color]


If tests don't show 100% repeatable results every single time with every single subject, then it has to be "could," otherwise it would simply be bad science. I'm still trying to figure this anger thing out with you. You've got so much hostility. Where's that coming from.


I have no Hostility in this thread? not in the last 4 pages? are you referring to another thread in another section? yes i believe you are.....when you have provided me with some HARD factual evidence that is actually suppoerted and written to show such then Ill concede if its reputable and documented ............

you can show me all the Erroneous Data you can find as i stated many times before Im a 30+ year testament ....that proves that these Inconclusive allegations are nothing more than that allegations .....
 
Werbung:
Yeah exactly, if you give me the guidelines full spec of what you consider conclusive, maybe I'll fork over the cash to buy a journal article or two just to stymie this cascading thread, it's getting much to long.

And please, do be concise.
 
Yeah exactly, if you give me the guidelines full spec of what you consider conclusive, maybe I'll fork over the cash to buy a journal article or two just to stymie this cascading thread, it's getting much to long.

And please, do be concise.
I have been concise

Conclusive,Hard,Facts

not ambigious possibilities..................documented hard line Proof...........
 
I gave examples of how it would read if it were conclusive

No, you didn't. You took what was proven and rearranged the wording in such a way as to change the subject of the sentence. Instead of "marijuana may have (this) effect in some users" it became "marijuana has (this) effect in users", in which the words "always" and "all" are implied through everything else you had said, making the statement "marijuana always has (this) effect in all users."

Please repost how to make those statements more conclusive, as I obviously do not see how you did so.
 
No, you didn't. You took what was proven and rearranged the wording in such a way as to change the subject of the sentence. Instead of "marijuana may have (this) effect in some users" it became "marijuana has (this) effect in users", in which the words "always" and "all" are implied through everything else you had said, making the statement "marijuana always has (this) effect in all users."

Please repost how to make those statements more conclusive, as I obviously do not see how you did so.

well then we have no further need to discuss this i was clear in what i wrote and meant you say you dont see it ok then...so be it

have a nice day
 
well then we have no further need to discuss this i was clear in what i wrote and meant you say you dont see it ok then...so be it

have a nice day

If you were so clear about it then how come we're all asking for clarification? Are you so much better than me, r0beph, palerider, Dave, USMC, PLC1, and even 9sublime, who has taken your side throughout the better part of this thread until you started to go off the deep end lately? I mean, if you are, maybe you should be the one who chose "God" as a screen name, not that other guy.
 
http://www.maps.org/media/fc021704_2.html



As the founder of a British Pharmaceutical company put it, if it weren't called Marijuana there would be an entire biotech business built around this plant. And that's just what is starting to happen (but not for the US drug industry or the patients these medicines might help).

One night in late September, Ethan Russo stood before a classroom packed with students on the University of Massachusetts' Amherst campus, and asked how many of them had been through the popular secondary-school program known as Drug Abuse Resistance Education, or DARE. Almost every hand in the audience went up. "Just as I thought," said Russo. "Well, we're going to hit that one head-on." He then cheerfully presented his version of what can only be described as a drug reeducation program.

Russo is a physician specializing in child neurology and one of the world's pioneering investigators into the therapeutic uses of pot. A slight, preternaturally good-humored man, Russo exhibited an outsized knowledge of his subject. Sticking strictly to the botanical name, Cannabis sativa , he noted that the plant's effects on the mind and body were first recorded by the ancient Assyrians in 2200 BC. These days, cannabis is used, mostly illegally, to relieve the nausea that accompanies chemotherapy, stimulate the appetites of AIDS sufferers, prevent blindness induced by glaucoma, suppress migraine headaches, and reduce the pain and muscle rigidity that accompanies multiple sclerosis.

Although nonprescription medications such as aspirin kill thousands of people every year, not a single death has ever been attributed to a cannabis overdose. The "therapeutic ratio" of marijuana is estimated to fall somewhere between 20,000 and 40,000--meaning it would take that many times a normal dose to kill you. If the drug is delivered as a pill or a spray (smoking just about anything is bad for you, after all), then Russo is unequivocal: "Cannabis is a safer medicine than almost all of the standard pharmaceuticals available today."

As he spoke, Russo clicked through a dazzling slide show: verdant fields of cannabis covering the foothills of Morocco's Rif Mountains; Thailand's marijuana plants on steroids, taller than a NBA center. But the most compelling slide was of a homely, quart-sized bottle labeled "Cannabis Tincture," which seemed to symbolize this country's inconsistent attitude toward medical marijuana. The United States has at times embraced the cannabis plant and its products: From the mid-19th century up until the mid-20th century, cannabis was a mainstream medicine, listed in the U.S. pharmacopoeia. The company that marketed the bottle of tincture was none other than Eli Lilly, the $11 billion behemoth that today is best known for another mood-altering drug, Prozac.

More recently, of course, the U.S. government has cast cannabis as a pariah drug. This past June, Karen Tandy, the first woman to head the Drug Enforcement Administration, declared that marijuana "has not been shown to have medical benefits."

Ethan Russo and a small group of trailblazing doctors, scientists, and businesspeople hope to prove her wrong. Russo recently signed on as a senior medical adviser to GW Pharmaceuticals, a British biotechnology company that has conducted clinical trials of cannabis-based medicines on people suffering from multiple sclerosis and chronic pain. In a memorandum to the House of Lords' committee on science and technology, GW reported that a vast major- ity of its patients have indicated "significant alleviation" of at least one symptom, including pain, spasticity, and bladder problems; in some cases, it said, the improvement "has been sufficient to transform lives."

This past May, GW inked a deal with the German pharmaceutical company Bayer Healthcare AG to market Sativex, a cannabis-laced oral spray that's used for treating severe neuropathic pain and multiple-sclerosis symptoms. Bayer, which agreed to market Sativex in the UK and Canada--and optioned rights for Europe--is betting that in the next few months, the first modern medicine made entirely of cannabis will pass muster with British regulators. GW estimates that the European market for Sativex could total $300 million to $400 million. "We're finding that cannabis medicines have enormous pharmacological capabilities and a unique capacity to attack, in a disease like MS, an entire range of symptoms," says Dr. Geoffrey Guy, GW's founder and chairman.

"If it wasn't called marijuana, by now there would have been an entire biotech industry built around this plant." GW's breakthroughs have put Guy in the vanguard of the aboveground marijuana economy, a handful of pharmaceutical entrepreneurs who are racing to build a legal market for cannabis medicines in countries that accept the drug's therapeutic potential (read: Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and most of western Europe). If Guy's bet pays off, GW just might become the Eli Lilly of medical marijuana.
 
"Cruel Hoax" or Solid Science?

The push to develop plant-based and synthetic cannabinoid medicines has been building since the early 1990s, when researchers identified nerve receptors in the brain that are stimulated by marijuana's active ingredient, THC, as well as the natural body chemical that binds to those receptors. The discovery of an entirely new class of brain receptors and the neurotransmitters that act on them--the endocannabinoid system--proved to be an astounding development, opening a whole new area of therapeutics.

Investigators believe that the system plays a critical role in mediating pain, appetite, movement, and memory. The giants of the drug industry, including Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, and Schering-Plough, are now hard at work in the lab, attempting to cook up synthetic versions of the 61 cannabinoid compounds found in marijuana plants. These are complex molecules with 21 carbons unique to cannabis, of which THC is the best known. Big Pharma has high hopes for these synthetics for the treatment of obesity, smoking, cancer pain, migraines, and MS symptoms. But such efforts are still in the early stages of development.

Investigators believe that the system in the brain that is stimulated by marijuana also plays a critical role in mediating pain, appetite, movement, and memory. At the more controversial end of the aboveground marijuana economy, developers are using the plant itself instead of synthetic compounds. "At least in the near future, it seems extremely unlikely that one of these companies will come up with a single synthetic agent that's as widely applicable as a cannabis-based medicine," says Russo. GW is taking whole extracts from the marijuana plant and recombining them to produce drugs that treat specific ailments. This plant-based approach has enabled the company to develop and test Sativex in five years, at a price tag of about $60 million. It's a remarkable feat, considering that Big Pharma on average shells out $800 million on a new drug and can easily devote a decade or more to animal research and first-dose-in-man testing. GW did minimal animal testing, taking Sativex rapidly to controlled, double-blind human trials.

"Something like 400 million people a year take cannabis in one form or another, and yet there's never been a recorded fatality from it," says Guy.

But you won't find any commercial development of plant-based marijuana medicines being pursued in the United States. Andrea Barthwell, a deputy director in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy and President Bush's point person on medical marijuana, says cannabis medicines aren't compatible with modern science. They do not constitute "a serious line of research," she says.

"The people who are advancing marijuana as a medicine are perpetuating a cruel hoax that exploits our compassion for the sick," Barthwell says. "They are using patients' pain and suffering in an attempt to change America's drug control policy. Marijuana is a crude plant product that most definitely is not a medicine."

It's a curious statement, given that it seems to reflect neither the views of the international scientific community nor those of the government's own regulatory agencies. For one thing, the Food and Drug Administration is reviewing 139 new-drug applications involving botanical research products, so plant-based medicines certainly aren't anathema. As for cannabis, in 1999 the Institute of Medicine, working at the behest of the White House drug czar's office, issued a lengthy report that assessed the scientific evidence concerning potential medical uses of marijuana. Its preeminent recommendation: "Research should continue into physiological effects of synthetic and plant-derived cannabinoids."

Barthwell, however, says that marijuana hasn't been standardized for pharmaceutical production. Nor is there any evidence, she says, that the plant's various compounds can be reliably produced in consistent concentrations. Clearly, she hasn't visited the world's most futuristic pot farm.
 
Those are excellent articles. They make a lot of good points. I've got a good point for you too: take a look at the vote. It's still 23 to 9 in favor of legalizing marijuana. Most of us are on board, myself included; we just want you to recognize that marijuana has harmful properties too. Well, palerider still wants to argue you down, but r0beph and 9sublime and I all agree with the legalization, or at the very least decriminalization, of marijuana. The only part of the conversation that is as yet unfinished is the conversation on negative effects.
 
Those are excellent articles. They make a lot of good points. I've got a good point for you too: take a look at the vote. It's still 23 to 9 in favor of legalizing marijuana. Most of us are on board, myself included; we just want you to recognize that marijuana has harmful properties too. Well, palerider still wants to argue you down, but r0beph and 9sublime and I all agree with the legalization, or at the very least decriminalization, of marijuana. The only part of the conversation that is as yet unfinished is the conversation on negative effects.


Summed up this whole thread in a paragraph.

Now I know this is from Erowid, so it is going to be a bit pro-cannabis but:

Except for their psychoactive ingredients, marijuana and tobacco smoke are nearly identical. 21 Because most marijuana smokers inhale more deeply and hold the smoke in their lungs, more dangerous material may be consumed per cigarette. However, it is the total volume of irritant inhalation - not the amount in each cigarette - that matters.

Most tobacco smokers consume more than 10 cigarettes per day and some consume 40 or more. Regular marijuana smokers seldom consume more than three to five cigarettes per day and most consume far fewer. Thus, the amount of irritant material inhaled almost never approaches that of tobacco users.


cigarette.jpg


However, I think that if you didn't cut your joint with tobacco then its going to be so much better. But thats just impractical.
 
Those are excellent articles. They make a lot of good points. I've got a good point for you too: take a look at the vote. It's still 23 to 9 in favor of legalizing marijuana. Most of us are on board, myself included; we just want you to recognize that marijuana has harmful properties too. Well, palerider still wants to argue you down, but r0beph and 9sublime and I all agree with the legalization, or at the very least decriminalization, of marijuana. The only part of the conversation that is as yet unfinished is the conversation on negative effects.


Actually, I said that I could favor decriminalization if serious prison terms were put in place for those involved in production and trafficking. And I would want to see fines for people who were endangering the public as a result of being under the influence with medium length jail terms for those who are multiple time offenders or unable to afford the fines.

I would also like to see the same for repeat alcohol offenders. A 3 time DUI should rot in jail for a decade.
 
Summed up this whole thread in a paragraph.

Now I know this is from Erowid, so it is going to be a bit pro-cannabis but:

Except for their psychoactive ingredients, marijuana and tobacco smoke are nearly identical. 21 Because most marijuana smokers inhale more deeply and hold the smoke in their lungs, more dangerous material may be consumed per cigarette. However, it is the total volume of irritant inhalation - not the amount in each cigarette - that matters.

Most tobacco smokers consume more than 10 cigarettes per day and some consume 40 or more. Regular marijuana smokers seldom consume more than three to five cigarettes per day and most consume far fewer. Thus, the amount of irritant material inhaled almost never approaches that of tobacco users.


cigarette.jpg


However, I think that if you didn't cut your joint with tobacco then its going to be so much better. But thats just impractical.

This is why people should be making "Ice Water Hash " which was invented by a woman i know whos name is Mila
she is In Amsterdam and she has travelled the world learning about hash ...and then came to invent a new method which is called the Ice-O-Lator system.

It has been copied by a Canadian man and caleed Bubble hash also using the Bubble bag syatem...same sytem different name Mila gets credit she invented it with an American. http://www.pollinator.nl is her website


anyways what this does is it washes the scraps that are usually thrown away during cannabis growth and harvest
There are what is known as "Trichomes" present all over a female marijuana plant that is in bloom. these "trichomes" under a microscope are at the end of shafts and are small bubbles filled with THC.

the material is placed in freezing water ,water right at freezing but not frozen the material is agitated and the trichomes freeze and break off of theyre stems.At this point they fall into the water and are strained through a series of screens. when they reach the last screen they are removed from the water the excess water is squeezed out and the crystals that remain are dried..

what you are left with is prctically PURE THC it is from 85-95% pure depending on the weed, and the wash, as it can be done twice with the same material. if left to dry and not pressed into hash they remain in a crystal like state. very much like freeze dired coffee if they are first wash they are nearly clear .....and have no smell the plant material has been completly stripped from the equation


if the crystals are pressed into hash when they are pressed and the oils are released and begin to mix, a recation occurs and it increases the potency of the overall Buzz.
this pressed hash or these crystals can then either be added to some weed or some tobacco and you achieve instant no nonsense Buzz.... which is so concentrated a few tokes is all most will be able to handle


if the crystals or hash is used in a commercial grade vapourizer....there is NO flame no smoke only the release of the oils as the vapourize into a lil vapor cloud that you inhale...this has eliminated all of the clorophyll from the plant any residual agents the plant may have ingested and also eliminated the carbon from actual smoke

a almost totally PURE way of smoking


Marijuana can also be used with a commercial vapourizer which eliminates the actual smoking of the plant product the vapourizer hets up the trichome sacks until they rupture releasing again a vapor cloud not an actual smoke cloud....as a matter of fact when a bud is smoked in a high grade commercial vapourizer it look the same as it did before you "smoked" it so ther have been developments
in the delivery methods which eliminates the actual smoke



not to mention ciggarettes contain over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known, cancer-causing (carcinogenic) compounds, and 400 other toxins. These include nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide, as well as formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and DDT.


marijuana smoke does not contain anywhere NEAR the amounts of elements listed...... it is non-comparable IMHO
 
Werbung:
Back
Top