Should marijuana be legalized?

[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..