C'mon CA, why didn't you pass Prop 19?!
I'm not exactly sure just how it didn't pass, apparently there are still people out there that think legalizing marijuana is bad.
Personally, we need the money, and everyone is using it anyway. You never hear of someone getting stoned, get in their car, and kill someone or getting stoned beating up their kids or wife. Pretty amazing. What are your thoughts? |
Anything the govt gets their hands on turns to chit?
|
I knew it wasn't going to happy yet. Another 3-5 years.
|
The reason is easy. The majority of the people who are advocates for legalization are younger. I think they said the 18-25 yr olds. That age group simply did not go out and vote. This was on a few news stations last night as well as on the Internet news.
|
I can't believe the number of people who are so quick to voice their opinion yet too lazy to vote. I saw several people on Facebook advocating certain issues but later admitted to not even being registered. WTF people?!?
|
Quote:
|
Haha. Let the government into it and watch it go the way of the postal service.
|
Quote:
In the end, I hope you get your legalized pot and sit around and smoke away all your problems. If pot users had a set of stones they could deal with their lives without self medicating. I know tons of stoners and NONE of them are producers, they are all consumers in life. Stoners don't grow emotionally, mentally, or at a normal physical rate. I'm a Libertarian so like I said, I hope all you stoners get your pot and I hope you sit on the sidelines of life and get passed by, because you are a consumer and not a producer. |
Quote:
Quote:
Sam, when you speak, I am amazed.. continually. Amazed. |
This Sam guy is joking right?
|
Agreed Barry, talk about a pile of Fail. haha.
One of the better arguments I heard from someone voting against legalization is that it would piss off the federal government which supplies somewhere in the neighborhood of 7 billion to CA for our budget. Their rational was that the upside to legalizing weed vs the downside of potentially losing 7 bil from the feds wasnt worth it. |
Quote:
If by chance he's serious.....all I can say is wow. |
Quote:
Being a Libertarian doesn't mean that I don't support government regulation. Only a fool would believe in something that could never exist. A Libertarian doesn't always believe in anarchy, the same way all Democrats are not Marxists. You have to work within the system that you currently have until you can change it. Yes, if I had it my way, the free market would rule, but we have pansy-ass bastards that think the government is here to provide for them, keep them safe, and make life fair. We have people who do nothing but consume in life and live off the sweat those that can produce. You can think in theory and principle all you want, but it does no good if you can't work within the current system, nothing gets done. I support more freedom for everyone, but Prop 19, and Prop 203 (Medical Pot) in AZ, are not "freedom neutral" or "freedom positive", both place a burden on producers and are fundamentally wrong. There is no such thing as medical pot. The argument for pot fails because those that argue for it are the people smoking it and I have never met a producer who uses it. Regular users are losers, this is shown by both props failing in CA and AZ. Both were losers.. |
Sam, I'm sure the friends you don't know smoke, disagree with you. I guess I can't say that's not your experience, personally mine is quite the opposite. Some of the smartest people I know are marijuana users, but I wouldn't consider them stoners. They include lawyers, doctors, council members, professors etc. definitely producers in life. Instead of a glass of wine they prefer to sit back and enjoy a smoke in the comfort of their home. I think the majority of smokers aren't looking to smoke away their problems, they are looking to kick back and enjoy their free time how they choose.
I'm not much of a pot smoker so it doesn't effect me, but it is just a matter of time before it gets passed. 54%-46% is far too close for it not to pass in the next 5 years. Perhaps the next Proposition will be better worded and have a real plan for taxes and revenues. A more thorough proposition would have brought some people off the fence, we'll see what they do next. |
Quote:
Second, I would vote for it if it was "freedom neutral" or "freedom positive", the way it was worded in both props was done poorly on purpose. It was done so in order to make enforcement difficult and make the gray area in the law as large as possible. In AZ you didn't have to be a Dr. in order to subscribe pot, why not? If it is medical pot, then why aren't you getting it from a pharmacy? |
[QUOTE=SamIngram;1644175] Regular users are losers QUOTE]
What about the guy who just pitched the winning game of the world series? |
Thanks Sam, it's nice to know that when I voice my opinion it comes down to me being unread and thus not as smart as you. Like I said "I can't say that's not your experience, personally mine is quite the opposite".
So all us desk jockey have to swing a hammer to be considered a producer? My dad has been in heavy equipment since he was 19, he would have kicked my ass if I didn't get a degree and became what he calls a "dirt clod". So now instead of being a producer I advise people how to make the most of their hard earned money. I even read big books, the most recent had a big test at the end, it's called the Series 7. If you want to see real big books, you should see my CFP study guide, MFing thing takes up an entire shelf on the bookcase! It's good to know that you can lump all professors as leftist vent holes. I don't understand how a finance or engineering professional can be a leftist in the teachings? A bridge needs to be built and there is a right and a wrong way, not much wiggle room for politics. Since the original argument was about marijuana, I think it's safe to say that far more contractors are pot heads than professors. |
Mr. Kinsella,
Stop smoking so much and you might be able to figure out the quote feature... just kidding Ryan. Winning the game does not make him a winner in life. Also, nothing is absolute, in any segment you will always have those the perform beyond the norm and those that perform below the norm. I'm talking about the average user. Arnold also used pot heavily and he became governor... big deal. There are more net losers than net winners. If pot is great, why didn't the props pass? Why hasn't it been legal all along? If the people who habitually smoke pot are so wonderful, why didn't they use all their skills to make pot legal? |
Sam..It didn't pass because because most of the stoner's forgot that it was election day.
|
Quote:
As far as an engineering professor being a leftist, you obviously haven't been to engineering school. At ASU, my engineering professors were collectivists, and didn't teach or promote individual thought. |
I'm not a smoker, but don't like the idea that we continue to finance the Mexican Cartel.
|
Quote:
|
Dude...
Hey..... what were we talking about? |
Quote:
|
When I was in engineering school the topic of politics never came up. What's with all the hate Sam? And why should we think you are a success in life? Seeing as how you brought it up.
|
Quote:
The simple fact is that the government has done an outstanding job in making people believe that it is so bad, and is the "gateway" drug. I call BS. Alcohol and cigarettes do FAR more damage to the lives of most people than cannabis has ever done. I have to agree with Stephen and say that some of the smartest people I know use it recreationally and would rather light up a blunt that have a beer of glass of wine. Just to be clear, I am not a stoner or a pot head, however I do enjoy the occasional smoke session. It needs more regulation, but we are getting closer for sure. Sooner than later I hope. |
"I'm not a smoker, but don't like the idea that we continue to finance the Mexican Cartel."
I was thinking the same thing. If it was legal, it'd be more readily produced and available here, prices would go down, and there would be a lot less money in smuggling pot into the U.S. and.. "but today's professors preach and teach leftist crap" ????? What a bunch of over-generalistic b.s. Quit smoking that crap yourself! |
Quote:
I didn't suggest that you think of me as a success in life, I don't care what you think of me. Hell, I didn't even state if I was a user or not, you just assumed... Since you brought it up, do I think of myself as a success in life? No, on a net basis I am a loser, I have failed at more things than I have succeeded at. I do continue to try though, I haven't given up, I haven't quit yet. I live by my principles and have yet to compromise or settle, I continue to work towards the things I believe in. I am not meek, bashful or shy, about what I believe in. On a daily basis I try to utilize the natural God given talents that I have, and not waste them. I am a success though, I have achieved things that I probably should not have, given my natural ability.... Can anyone tell me pot was outlawed to begin with? We had prohibition of alcohol, which is probably a more dangerous drug, why was it ended and not prohibition of pot? |
If I remember correctly pot was made illegal because blacks were the ones the governemnt was trying to control with the law passing. They felt that blacks smoking pot enfangered the well being of white men and women. That's what I remember from the history channel. I could be wrong though.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
If that is correct, that is the exact same reason why we have gun control laws. The majority of gun control laws were put in place during the Reconstruction Era to stop newly freed slaves from being able to have guns... Quote:
|
I voted for it, but I also knew it would not pass without support from the feds. it is almost laughable now though with how easy it is to get a med card for it. just go that route until it is legalized.
|
What I remember from the documetary on The History Channel was that the push to make marijuana illegal came from the southwestern states during the depression. Jobs previously filled by those "lazy" pot smoking Mexicans became desireable to those "hard working" Americans that previously didn't want them. Making pot illegal was a way to demonize the Mexicans.
I don't remember too much about blacks in that documentary, but it was a while back when I saw it. |
The drug situation is so funny. The arguments both sides use are rediculous. The bottom line is that we as a gneeral rule do not like the use of any drugs. However every culture is going to have drug abusers. So the line was arbitrarily to allow alcohol and tobacco. Using the argument that one of these is a worse drug than YOUR drug of choice is stupid. "My bad thing should be allowed because these other bad things are".
The truth is, the government should not dictate what you put in your body. Nor should they help you when you are in dire straits from it. The business world should be able to dictate what its employees are allowed to do. If so, this problem fixes itself. The drug users cant work and cant get help. They eventually are culled from the herd. All drugs should be "legal". But you tell a stoner that ALL drugs should be legal at they are the first to say "whoa tap the breaks, coke and heroin should still be illegal." Why? The coke heads are being just as unfairly treated as potheads. FYI, legalizing pot does not get rid of the cartels. When the govt grows it and taxes it, it will be cheaper to go to your cartel. Potheads tend to be bargain shoppers. The drug war doesnt go away, it just shifts from one group to another. Instead of users it will target retail establishments and cartels. prisons stay full, and money is still wasted. |
One really good documentry that explains how it became ilegal is stated near the beginning of.
The Union: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...4414651731007# The US Military used Hemp to make all the uniforms for soldiers as Hemp doesn't burn. |
Quote:
I agree.... This article was on one of the crazy websites that I read... seems like the guy is getting a bum deal, but I don't know all the particulars... |
Thought this was a pretty good read. Basically talks about why it failed and what it will take for marijuana legalization to be passed in the US.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/0...ex.html?hpt=T2 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Whoa whoa whoa... Poser smokes weed? Who knew?! :)
I haven't smoked weed since my teens.. so I have no personal stake in this at all. I do, however, know plenty of successful, intelligent and all around fantastic people that occasionally get high. |
"I know tons of stoners and NONE of them are producers, they are all consumers in life. Stoners don't grow emotionally, mentally, or at a normal physical rate."
This is the second biggest crock of sheet I have ever read. Want to see the first? (Not surprisingly, it comes from Sam) "First, a lawyer, council member, or professor is not a producer! They all live off the sweat of others and are leaches. A professor could be a noble position in life, but today's professors preach and teach leftist crap, the majority don't promote actual thinking or problem solving (a very few do though). This is in part, part of the problem, to many people don't understand what a producer is. They think they contribute, but they don't." You don't have a clue man, and it is really sad. All of you claiming how bad pot is are probably the same guys that drink a 12 pack with your boys and after you guys finish each beer, you smash the cans against each other's foreheads. You guys then jump in your monster truck and then drive 90 through someone's neighborhood and hit a few mailboxes with a ball bat. Simply look at the facts, can you OD on alcohol? Can you OD on prescription meds? Can you OD on aspirin or Tylenol? It is medically impossible to OD on marijuana. How many families are in shambles as a result of alcohol abuse? |
Quote:
If your points are so valid, why isn't pot legal? If pot is so great, why aren't more people fighting for to legalize it?? |
I'll answer Sam, even though I know you really are not that passionate about this topic but feel like arguing.
More people are voting no for legalization because they have been conditioned (like yourself) to believe that pot is an evil gateway drug. This started when a very sustainable plant called hemp was taking over the profitable paper industry. Since then, it has been grouped together with several other serious drugs since Reagan 's "war on drugs". You probably think if you smoke pot your brain looks like an egg in a frying pan. A main reason all of this drives me nuts is all of the millions of tax dollars and police/lawyer/judges/DEA wasted hours enforcing this stuff when they could be using our money more efficiently. |
"If your points are so valid, why isn't pot legal? If pot is so great,"
There is no "IF" to my points, they are 100% fact. I never said pot was great, but in the grand scheme of things, there are many, many worse things one can do to their body, for example, going to the all-you-can-eat buffet at Golden Corral. As Ryan said, people have been conditioned to believe that marijuana is evil. There is an older movie (I think it is called "Reefer Madness") that basically shows people going crazy on pot. I also think you are wrong for referring to all marijuana users (I rarely use it, it's been about 5 years, AMOF) as stoners. Do you refer to everyone that drinks wine, a wino? |
Did anyone watch that History of Marijuana thing on the History Channel last night (not sure if it had aired before). There were some good pro and cons presented there. The biggest con that I can find is that by legalizing it we are introducing another carcinogen into the fold that would further burden the health care system.
The also mentioned how Portugal has decriminalized all drugs and that the violence rates have dropped and use has either dropped or stayed the same. The rationale was that instead of incarcerating them, they'd use the funds for treatment of those who needed it. |
Quote:
Also, if the legalization movement had any intelligence at all, they would get a solid base of non-smoking mouthpieces. Everyone else would shut up. Stoners are the John Kerry of the social world. They would win, if they would just shut their pie-holes. The public does not like criminals, but every person, rich, famous, or successful, who states that they partake and its ok, are admitted to being criminals who break federal laws. The idea behind law is to obey the laws, and if you dont agree with them, you dont break them, you change them. Every smoker that gets up there and campaigns, is a criminal attempting to make law to suit their crime. That will never sit well with the public. It shows they have no respect for the institution they are trying to work. I guess it takes mentally sharp people to figure that out which is the irony of the legalization debate. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Nice argument Jason. So pot smokers are stupid for exercising their right to freedom of speech. According to you, if a particular group is oppressed then they are stupid for not waiting around for someone outside their group to come to their aid. They should just shut up.
What I don't see in your argument is that the general public is stupid for supporting substances like tabacco and alcohol to be legal and not something that is considered no more harmful like pot. This is reason it's pointed out. It's a matter of equitable treatment and fairness. The greatest danger to people who use pot is the legal system. The fact is that the public in their ignorant bliss don't care about the legal system destroying other people's lives. It's just part of the inherent selffishness of humans to not think about such things. I know you believe in your untested theories and judge everyone else according to them. But it sounds like a lot of crap to me. |
Quote:
nope, didn't see that actually... didn't see the entire thing. |
Posted before and will post again.
Just watch it!!.....sure it's a bit one sided but has some really good points. The Union: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...4414651731007# |
"The public does not like criminals, but every person, rich, famous, or successful, who states that they partake and its ok, are admitted to being criminals who break federal laws. The idea behind law is to obey the laws, and if you dont agree with them, you dont break them, you change them. "
Oh really, it's funny that when I drive down the interstate, 100's of cars pass me well over the speed limit. So I guess you never speed Jason??? It find it ironic also, that when I am eating a meal at just about any restaurant, I see plenty of booze being served at that restaurant. Last time I checked, DUI was illegal, so are laws being broken Jason??? I'm also glad that you feel you are the voice for the entire public. "I guess it takes mentally sharp people to figure that out which is the irony of the legalization debate." Please don't try to convince us that you are one of the "mentally sharp" that has this all figured out. |
Quote:
There is no law against driving tired, yet many accidents every year are due to people falling asleep at the wheel. The congruent argument would be alcoholics trying to pass a prop making DUI legal since driving while tired is legal. Both are dangerous. While it may be true, it is not a point that bolsters your position. Wake77- LOL, not sure why this is pointed at me, but I will play. I'm not sure what my driving has to do with this, but for your argument, lets say I do speed. let say I go 100mph on every road, everywhere I go. 1. I wouldnt be campaigning a prop to raise the speed limit on every road to 100mph and force everyone to have to deal with my dangerous habit. 2. I wouldnt be a good spokesman for changing the law, since I ignore the law anyway. 3. If I did find myself campaigning, I wouldnt use an existing group more stupid than myself to justify my own stupidity to the masses. They wont buy it. I would find another more persuasive talking point. and if you actually read my post, I said ALL drugs should be legal, so im my book you can have your precious pot. The initial question asked why it didnt pass and I gave you why I think it didnt pass. I tried to convince you of nothing. |
That isn't a good analogy Jason. Society hasn't accepted the belief that driving tired is fine. I doubt anyone believes that people who fall asleep while driving should be driving. Anyone who is mentally sharp could see that.
But they have accepted the belief that drinking alcohol is within the acceptable norms and not unreasonably dangerous to society. Arguing that pot is less dangerous than alcohol is simply trying to inform the public that doesn't understand that point. |
"dangerous habit."
How is smoking pot a dangerous habit? |
LOL, it's a carcinogen for one.
|
how many of you guys arguing this actually live in Cali anyways?
|
Well at least we all know who all the pot smokers on WW are now.:D
|
Jeremy this is what makes it a dangerous habit:
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_16524557 "The driver was suspected of driving under the influence of marijuana, the CHP said. He later died at a hospital." " |
"LOL, it's a carcinogen for one."
I guess you have some scientific evidence for this claim. Maybe you can post the link to the story of the person(s) that have succumbed to cancer from smoking marijuana. "Jeremy this is what makes it a dangerous habit:" I agree that you shouldn't drive after smoking marijuana, but how many people have died as the result of texting or talking on a cell phone while driving? Does this mean texting or talking on a cell phone while sitting at your home is a "bad habit"? |
Train, Im in CA, not arguing though. I am too lazy, unmotivated and paranoid to argue. Is it 420 yet?
|
Quote:
|
Lungs are much much more easily damaged than intestinal tract when it comes to cancer causing agents. I don't see people huffing black pepper.
|
Marijuana has never been proven to be a "cancer causing agent".
|
What killed it were the growers in NorCal.
*heads over to friends house to bitch them out.......and sample product* |
Just like cigs were not found to be harmful by the tobacco companies either. Keep on believing the myths.
|
There is scientific evidence to support the harmful effects of cigs, produce this evidence for marijuana.
|
You really believe putting smoke into your lungs does no damage? Tooth fairy will pick santa up and will be right over to get you. You probably don't believe that smoking pot or other drugs does nothing your receptors in your brain either. You don't think outside the box very well do you.
|
There is nothing to substantiate what you have said. You get smoke in your lungs from grilling out, campfires, burning leaves, riding in your boat, etc. Aspirin, tylenol, affect your receptors. A person speaks to you about global warming, and you want the evidence. A person asks you to produce evidence about your claims about the effects of pot and you produce jack sheet. You have rightfully earned your stake to the claim of WW's biggest hypocrite.
|
Quote:
I have some articles I'll post later, most of the research that the anti-19 party presented was outdated articles from the 80s and 90s from people who are self proclaimed experts. More and more peer reviewed research is pointing towards the countless medical benefits of weed that refute previous "cancer causing" propaganda. |
There is no proof of global warming. Sure people like to throw up the hockey stick and claim it comes from co2 but completely ignore that during the dino times that co2 was thousands of times higher but the earth I am sure most people would have consider the earth to be the healthiest then. Also with co2 usage not diminishing, the earths rise in temp has went flat in the last 10 years. So, no I don't believe in something just because a bunch of pro UN children want to believe in so they can tax us.
Now you just added a bunch of other items to the mix to try and throw the trail off the argument. All of those things you mentioned (besides riding in your boat and I have no idea where that comes from) have either been banned/ permitted activity in many cities or regulated and come with warnings for doing so. Enough of a warning that using the product beyond its intended usage can cause your death. You want to throw these things into the mix to try and say pot does not do this or to say these things do it too? I don't understand your failed logic. Do you like to argue just to hear the echos in your head. You really believe that smoking pot does nothing to you? Talk to all the drug rehab facility people. They don't agree with you. You don't even seem to agree with you. You try and prove your point that all these other things can cause issues. I am tired of doing homework for you. http://drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/effects.-Lya.htm http://www.weedguru.com/agamed.php BTW, your catholic point is off base as well. I just did not want to continue the highjack. Catholic is a greek translation that was used early to describe the church. The catholic church you know today stated with Constantine around 300 years after christ with the merge of paganism and christian themes. Even with your example, it was still over 150 years after christ. Again, you keep wanting to ignore facts just for the sake of arguing. I guess I see why you are in course of study that has actual answers, because your overall grasp of reasoning and facts is lacking. |
Yes, you can always count on the govt to give unbiased informed infomation.:p
Quote:
The govt can't figure out how to cure any illnesses. In case nobody has noticed, the govt doesn't even know why people are getting illnesses, some we've never even heard of in the past... Celiac, CFS, ALS, MS, Parkinsons, Alzhiemers, Gulf War Syndrome, name any auto immune illness. Even peanut allergies that are unheard of in other places in the world. I have to laugh at people who think that global warming is a sham but hang on every word that comes from the govt about other types of research as if it's the gospel truth. The govt doesn't know s**t. Anything that will cover a bureaucrat's a$$ and fits the current political bias is the official word. |
"because your overall grasp of reasoning and facts is lacking"
I strongly bet to differ. Once you complete Multivariable Calculus (finished that Spring 09), upper-level mathematics moves into less computation and more into mathematical logic and reason. It has actually lead to a character flaw, because I have to look at things logically. For example, if I offer a claim such as, x^2 + x + 41 is prime for any x in the set of positive integers, and you counter "what if x=41", then my claim is false. Well let's apply this to the original argument, like if I say pot has never been shown to cause cancer, and you produce [U]ONE[U] counterexample, then my original statement is invalid. But you have not offered a valid counterexample, so logically my claim is still valid. "Talk to all the drug rehab facility people." Considering marijuana is one of the most used drugs in the U.S., I would be reluctant to take the advice from someone that would stand to lose potential clients upon the legalization of pot. If you believe all Catholics are going to hell, that's fine. I am not going to argue semantics with you. |
Yeah we definitely want to ask someone who profits from pot being demonized if pot is bad.:p
|
Yet you are perfectly willing to let the government make your healthcare choices huh John? I don't hang on the research of anyone is the truth but yet you seem to have your own faith based will that a bunch of stoners want to believe that something is not harmful what so ever but the government is making up everything so you need to discount it so you can get more substance abuse legalized. Then you turn around and want and vote for the government to control every bit of your life. Which do you want?
Your comprehension is lacking. Even the stoner site I listed talked about issues with it. It is very logical to say if cigarettes cause cancer and the reason they cause cancer is because of such and such drug. Then they determine that the next drug (marijuana) has 3 times these substances in them, then it can be reasonable to conclude that marijuana can cause cancer. You can carry on about the amount of usage and so on, but, your claims is that marijuana has no dangerous effects. I begged to differ. Then you guys like to argue that because there is lack of evidence of long term studies to make such a conclusion. Of course you are not going to have a study like that since the drug is illegal. How many thousands are going to step up for such a study. How many years did it take to prove cigarette smoke is dangerous? Then it gets clouded since many marijuana smokers also smoke cigarettes. Cigarettes have been concluded with out a doubt to cause much harm with less of the chemicals in them. You can not logically conclude that marijuana would not product similar results. On drug council people. Yes, our small town in Indiana pretty much had a racket with drug councilors. Pop a teen for minor consumption or pot and send them to these people for a captive audience. I am speaking of many of the left types of people who are very interested in helping people and in a place that people like to voluntary go to. These people are interested in treating people with addiction because they really do want to help. Try talking to them about people who get hooked on this stuff. I love all the marijuana is not addictive but the people can't stop due to other reasons. The emotional attachment is the addiction. That is your brain adjusting it's thought patterns to rely on the drug. It is not always like someone who is getting off of heroin and getting the shakes and crap. Addiction takes many forms. These people who do this for a living to get people back into society would argue differently with you. They get to talk to people who come in voluntarily for their addictions in a one on one manner and they have the real answer. Listen to what they have to say. |
Quote:
If pot were legalized drug rehab facilities would have much higher source of potential clients... use some of that logic that you learned. If it were legal more people would probably try it and more people would probably habitually use it and require some type of rehab process to get off of it. and lets see: Cannabis use and mental health in young people: cohort study Conclusions: Frequent cannabis use in teenage girls predicts later depression and anxiety, with daily users carrying the highest risk. Given recent increasing levels of cannabis use, measures to reduce frequent and heavy recreational use seem warranted. Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic review Findings There was an increased risk of any psychotic outcome in individuals who had ever used cannabis (pooled adjusted odds ratio=1·41, 95% CI 1·20–1·65). Findings were consistent with a dose-response effect, with greater risk in people who used cannabis most frequently (2·09, 1·54–2·84). Results of analyses restricted to studies of more clinically relevant psychotic disorders were similar. Depression, suicidal thoughts, and anxiety outcomes were examined separately. Findings for these outcomes were less consistent, and fewer attempts were made to address non-causal explanations, than for psychosis. A substantial confounding effect was present for both psychotic and affective outcomes. Mental health of teenagers who use cannabis Results One-quarter of the adolescents in the sample had used cannabis. There were no gender differences. Use increased rapidly with age, was more common in adolescents living with a sole parent and was associated with increased depression, conduct problems and health risk behaviours (smoking, drinking) but not with higher use of services. The Residual Cognitive Effects of Heavy Marijuana Use in College Students Results. —Heavy users displayed significantly greater impairment than light users on attentional/executive functions, as evidenced particularly by greater perseverations on card sorting and reduced learning of word lists. These differences remained after controlling for potential confounding variables, such as estimated levels of premorbid cognitive functioning, and for use of alcohol and other substances in the two groups. Pharmacology and effects of cannabis: a brief review Results Cannabinoids derived from herbal cannabis interact with endogenous cannabinoid systems in the body. Actions on specific brain receptors cause dose-related impairments of psychomotor performance with implications for car and train driving, aeroplane piloting and academic performance. Other constituents of cannabis smoke carry respiratory and cardiovascular health risks similar to those of tobacco smoke. Adverse Reactions and Recurrences from Marijuana Use Abstract Two large representative samples of high school students were examined for their frequency of adverse reactions to marijuana and frequency of recurrences of marijuana effects in a non-drug state. Both adverse reactions and recurrences were found to be higher than might be expected in non-clinical populations. Upward of 1 in 5 students had experienced “anxiety, confusion or other unpleasant effects” on marijuana, and upward of 1 in 7 students had experienced a recurrence of marijuana effects while not using the drug. Evidence was presented that reports of recurrences were not limited to cases of multiple drug use but occurred among marijuana users who had not used other hallucinogenic drugs. Nope, no evidence of health risks... you might experience psychotic depression or other mental disorders though... Yes, that stuff is good! Keep smoking! Keep trying to justify the habit! |
I didnt pass because it was poorly written - not because we aren't open to the idea. The law left too many loopholes, and left employers vulnerable. The way it was written basically protected a person who was stoned from being fired. On top of that, the attorney general announced he will enforce federal law which essentially incriminated cities if they tried to tax cannibas.
|
"It is very logical to say if cigarettes cause cancer and the reason they cause cancer is because of such and such drug. Then they determine that the next drug (marijuana) has 3 times these substances in them, then it can be reasonable to conclude that marijuana can cause cancer. You can carry on about the amount of usage and so on, but, your claims is that marijuana has no dangerous effects. I begged to differ."
All I am saying is produce the evidence. Come on Sam, All of that you posted and all we get is a potential INCREASED chance of anxiety (you can get that from a couple of cups of coffee) and depression (what doesn't cause depression these days?). |
Quote:
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/B8g3XXLTUpo?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/B8g3XXLTUpo?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> |
^I don't get it.
|
Quote:
|
Jeremy. I can't help you. It is very basic reasoning on the lung cancer portion alone never mind the other effects over ones life (which you don't seem to argue). If one drug has over 3 times the cancer causing agents that the one that does, then it does not need any more proof than that. There is nothing left to prove. After that, it is just usage amount. Can't be any simpler than that. If you want, I can find plenty of studies for you again that show the substances in smoked products that have killed thousands or does marijuana have this magical power to defy human biology? Again, to argue that taking drugs does nothing to you is childish on the very basic level. It may not be the very worst drug, but it is not harmless.
|
|
Quote:
Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic In conclusion, while both tobacco and cannabis smoke have similar properties chemically, their pharmacological activities differ greatly. Components of cannabis smoke minimize some carcinogenic pathways whereas tobacco smoke enhances some. Both types of smoke contain carcinogens and particulate matter that promotes inflammatory immune responses that may enhance the carcinogenic effects of the smoke. However, cannabis typically down-regulates immunologically-generated free radical production by promoting a Th2 immune cytokine profile. Furthermore, THC inhibits the enzyme necessary to activate some of the carcinogens found in smoke. In contrast, tobacco smoke increases the likelihood of carcinogenesis by overcoming normal cellular checkpoint protective mechanisms through the activity of respiratory epithelial cell nicotine receptors. Cannabinoids receptors have not been reported in respiratory epithelial cells (in skin they prevent cancer), and hence the DNA damage checkpoint mechanism should remain intact after prolonged cannabis exposure. Furthermore, nicotine promotes tumor angiogenesis whereas cannabis inhibits it. It is possible that as the cannabis-consuming population ages, the long-term consequences of smoking cannabis may become more similar to what is observed with tobacco. However, current knowledge does not suggest that cannabis smoke will have a carcinogenic potential comparable to that resulting from exposure to tobacco smoke. |
Actually Sam, I agree with your premise and it is the same as mine that you can not be intellectually honest and say it is harmless. I did find an article similar to what you just posted and it would simple suggest that you may not develop the same type of cancer.
Found this article: Effects on the HeartWithin a few minutes after smoking marijuana, the heart begins beating more rapidly and the blood pressure drops. Marijuana can cause the heart beat to increase by 20 to 50 beats per minute, and can increase even more if other drugs are used at the same time.Because of the lower blood pressure and higher heart rate, researchers found that users' risk for a heart attack is four times higher within the first hour after smoking marijuana.Effects on the LungsSmoking marijuana, even infrequently, can cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat, and cause heavy coughing. Scientists have found that regular marijuana smokers can experience the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers do, including: * Daily cough and phlegm production * More frequent acute chest illnesses * Increased risk of lung infections * Obstructed airwaysMarijuana contains more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke and because marijuana smokers usually inhale deeper and hold the smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers, their lungs are exposed to those carcinogenic properties longer.One study found that marijuana smokers were three times more likely to develop cancer of the head or neck than non-smokers. Many researchers believe than smoking marijuana is overall more harmful to the lungs than smoking tobacco.Other Health EffectsResearch indicates that THC impairs the body's immune system from fighting disease, which can cause a wide variety of health problems. One study found that marijuana actually inhibited the disease-preventing actions of key immune cells. Another study found that THC increased the risk of developing bacterial infections and tumors.Effects of Exposure During PregnancySeveral studies have found that children born to mothers who used marijuana during pregnancy exhibit some problems with neurological development. According to those studies, prenatal marijuana exposure can cause: * Altered responses to visual stimuli * Increased tremulousness * Problems with sustained attention and memory * Poor problem-solving skillsA 2002 report by the British Lung Foundation estimated that three to four cannabis cigarettes a day were associated with the same amount of damage to the lungs as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.In 2008 a study was released by the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand suggested that smoking cannabis increased the risk of lung cancer by 5.7 times over non-smokers.A 2009 study found that cannabis use may increase the risk of testicular cancer. In particular, the risk of developing nonseminoma testicular cancer, a more aggressive form of the disease, was increased in current cannabis users and even greater in long-term chronic users.Like all smoke, cannabis smoke contains tars which, unlike cannabinoids themselves, are rich in carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a prime culprit in smoking-related cancers.Other effects are memory problems in heavy, long term users. While it is not considered 'addictive' many long term users who attempt to quit have reported anger problems, loss of sleep, nervousness and irritability much like those who attempt to quit tobacco.Other studies have been done that are often quoted by users that suggest marijuana has NO bad effects what so ever. Those studies are often misquoted or quoted in such a way as to make it look like marijuana use is not dangerous in any way.While marijuana users like to say it does no harm, anyone capable of logical reasoning can not possibly think that inhaling any type of smoke into their bodies can be good for them. |
Exercise can raise your heart rate. Grilled red meat contains carcinogens. Going to jail can ruin your life. Sky diving can kill you. Inhaling anything that's burning is obiviously not going to be good for you. Really, what's the point of this?
If we could get health care costs under control then the govt could reward the tobacco companies for saving SS money. |
I can see that there are a few people on here that like to have the comfort of the government telling them what they can and cannot do every step of the way backing up their side of the arguements by copying some Google searches.
Hopefully Sam and the others against this prop will start the movement towards making pet dogs illegal. I did a google search and read some studies that said they carry harmful diseases that can spread to their human partners. |
John,
I understand what you are saying and you are 100% correct. The original premise is that it has been said in the thread that pot has no ill effects and I called BS. You can not say something that is mind altering and has carcinogins in it, has no ill effects. That is not a truthful statement. Sure, doing it from time to time is not going to kill you. Just like drinking is not going to kill you if you do it occasionally, but to say that alcohol is not dangerous is stupid. Of course it is and thousands a year die from it and countless families are destroyed by it. To ignore that you are inviting similar things into society with pot is ignorance. Just like all things, it is moderation. Funny you mention that Ryan. San Francisco actually tried to ban pet stores and they did ban toys in meals. It is known as banning happy meals. Ryan, it is not about the government telling people what to do. Let me ask you, why do we need more substance abuse legalized in society? Do you believe substance abuse actually causes issues in families/ job/ life in general? What is the up side? A good way to look at things is this. What is the upside? Then what is the down side? I don't see any upside to this. I only see downside. People think we are going to get taxes from it? Think again. It will be grown on the side just like it is now because the growers do not want to lose their profit. Then look at the federal law suits we will have to fend off. You will still be fired from work with it in your system. You will have to create departments to regulate and study it. You will then be required to treat anyone who is addicted to it. The cost will be staggering. I don't see upside in this when people pretty much smoke at will right now. I always knew middle school kids that had it on them and now my daughters know of dozens of kids that smoke weed in middle school. If anyone can get it, then it is pretty much legal without all the official departments we have to pay for to properly guard against lawsuits. Pot, at least in California, is pretty much defacto legal right now. No one really gets busted for it. IF they did, they would not be on a website saying the smoke pot. |
The upside is freedom from persecution. That's the upside of doing away with all draconion methods of population control. If you believe everything bad for you that society now legally partcipates in, then there are lots of things that we could make illegal. One of the biggest problems in society today is obesity in our youth. We could make it illegal for a child to be obese. Take away parental rights if their children don't conform to accepted guidelines of weight. Force parents into programs or put them in jail for child endangerment.
Why stop there? How many people on this forum have talked about getting their knees repaired from wakeboarding and wanting to know when they can go out and do it again? See a problem with that? Make all dangerous sports illegal. Limit the hours per day that people can watch TV. That takes away productivity and many people are becoming depressed from couch potato lifestyles. Get rid of alcohol and tobacco. Tobacco probably tops the list of highly addictive dangerous substances that children have easy access to. They are hooked before they even reach the age of buying them. The thing is that that majority of Americans don't want to live in a society like that. They want the freedom to engage in things that aren't the best for society as a whole, but gives them personal pleasure. Yes, there are negative issues statistically associated with pot. Just as there are negative issues statistically associated with a lot of legal activities. How many people work jobs that are so stressful that it's is literally killing them with stress? People who are sick and should be on disability to recover, but they physically can work even as their health declines. Is it really an upside to take productive people and severely impact their lives with the legal system if they get caught with pot? |
I agree John. In california, they turned it into a simple ticket. If you are stupid enough to get caught in the first place, then it is not a huge deal. It is enough of a fine to get people to put the crap away and to be smarter next time. Even though alcohol is legal, you can not have even a empty can in your car or it is a ticket.
We can go on about obesity of the youth. You can thank the women's lib people for that one. There is no one in the home to allow kids out to play like they should and no supervision. It does not have to be just women at home but look again at what happens with progressive societies. Unintended consequences. Same with the knees. People want to bitch about healthcare costs but are allowed to do things like that. Of course the costs go up. Mark my words, there will be a time when you will either need special sports insurance or if national healthcare passes, they may cut you off to stop costs. I looked it up and youth sports account for millions of dollars a year emergency room visits. It very well could get banned if people want cheap insurance. Maybe not banned, just not affordable. You attribute all these things as bad and I can agree with you. They do cost society. Many of them will be so cost prohibitive that they soon will ban themselves. Besides the jail issue which I can agree with, I don't see why you would want to add more especially with the legal things that hurt society. I can't believe people say it is not addictive but yet would risk jail for it? |
Quote:
As far as health risks of Marijuana, it's definitely not good for you. If you smoke marijuana habitually, you're probably more likely to get cancer and have lung problems. It's as simple as that, it's not rocket science. With that being said, a lot of things cause cancer. A lot of things put your health at risk. My thought is, alcohol is no problem when it's consumed...in moderation. Same thing with marijuana. It's really not a problem....in moderation. Sure there are people that smoke their brain to the point where it's a fried egg in a pan. And thats part of what gives marijuana it's bad rap. But there are also extremely intellectual marijuana users out there as well. I know a kid in my high school that graduated with a 4.0 gpa and went to MIT, and there was hardly a time I saw that kid outside of school when he didn't have a joint in his hand. I was at a friends place, who's parent is a highly-ranked individual for a large company, when my friend said to their parent "You owe me, I got you weed the other night." I was shocked. Point is, there are bad and good users of these controversial substances. And now I'm just rambling, so I'll end it here. |
Quote:
There's an article in the paper today about a land developer who has been illegally poaching animals on his property for several years. He's facing jail time now. Does anyone believe that he has a physical addiction to poaching animals? |
"I can't believe people say it is not addictive but yet would risk jail for it?"
Isn't downloading movies (from piratebay, etc.) illegal? Do you think people are addicted to movies? |
I hear what you are saying about these other activities, but, everyone says they know of all these people in prison for pot. I personally don't see that and think that is a made up talking point to a certain degree, but, pot has not been legal for generations. With it never have been legal and supposedly all these people in jail, why would you continue to want to use it when there are legal substances to make you not give a crap.
On the movies, I agree that people are not addicted to movies (maybe getting over is addicting?) but I don't think anyone knows a single person who was busted for it. If more people were busted and there where heavy fines I would guess most people would stop. I know people who stopped downloading free music when they start suing people for it. |
Here's a good example of how much trust there is about the information that our govt gives us...
WRT TSA full body scans, the govt says... Quote:
But the piloit's unions say... Quote:
It's only 2 minutes of airline flight at altitude. Why don't the pilots and their union believe what the govt says? |
To be honest, the take away I get from the second article is they don't like fact they have to go through the screening at all. As you read down the article, they also are concerned about the "enhanced pat down". I think they are using "potential" health risks as a arguing point to keep from having to be screened.
Just to note, rad workers typically are allowed 5 rem a year whole body (your hands and eyes for instance can take more like 15 rem a year). That is 5,000 mrem (milli rem) or 5,000,000 urem (micro rem). |
If I was a pilot, I would not want to get radiated every day. That's what I got from the article. Since the alternative is getting patted down, I can see why they argue that they shouldn't be screened.
|
Prop 19 not passing is just another perfect example of how the "college age" kids love to protest and voice all of the problems with the government and the world but when it comes down to it and they actually have a chance for their voice to made into law, they decide they have something better to do that day. All they had to do was go out and vote. If they all felt so strongly about it, they would have and probably could have gotten enough numbers for it to go through. The kids that actually take the initiative already have done so and gone to a doctor and got their card. They had no reason to go out and vote for a law that suddenly could have gotten their dispenseries shut down by the Feds. I'm sure there was a large percentage of medical marijuana users that went out and voted against the bill. They were simply just protecting themselves knowing that if legalized, the potential repercussions could have gotten everything taken away from
them. If legal, I'm sure more pot would have been found on people in car accidents not because they were neccessarily high at the time but could now legally have it on them instead of keeping it hidden or at home. This would give the feds a great reason to intervene showing that since the legalization, there have been more deadly accidents associated with marijuana and then go on to blame the accidents on marijuana. you then get these kids parents on dr Phil or oprah saying how marijuana and prop 19 ruined my kids life and boom, all hell would break loose. Dispenseries would be shut down, their employees would be arrested and I'm sure they would nab a few clientele just to make a statement forcing california to amend the bill and possibly criminalize marijuana in their state. If you think the republicans came out and voted this time, the number would double to make it illegal all together. Leave everything how it is in California. let the people who have taken their time to safely get it get it and let the kids and surf bums keep bitching about their cheap mexican bush weed should have been high grade hydroponics only if the conservatives didn't shut us down again. Maybe if their wetsuits with instructions on how to get a voters registration card instead of a wax comb, they would have gotten what they wanted :). And yes, I fully support the use of medical marijuana, but if I lived in Cali, I would have voted NO. |
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 8:11 AM. |