Poll

Legalize it?

Yes
No

Author Topic: Weed  (Read 27230 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline zxlkho

  • Official Dream Theater Hater.
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7666
  • Gender: Male
Re: Weed
« Reply #70 on: October 18, 2011, 07:49:21 PM »
How can it work?

Check out how Mao Zedong handled China's opium problem. That's at least one example of prohibition working.

EDIT: From Wiki:

Quote
The Mao Zedong government is generally credited with eradicating both consumption and production of opium during the 1950s using unrestrained repression and social reform. Ten million addicts were forced into compulsory treatment, dealers were executed, and opium-producing regions were planted with new crops.

So, if something's a big enough problem (weed isn't but you might be able to argue that alcohol was in the early 20th century) it can be dealt with. But you to be willing to take a hard, police-state level line on drugs, which prohibition in the 20's was not and The War on Drugs was only close to under Nixon.

And yeah, it won't eliminate the substance all together. But it will produce results, I'm sure.

Like I said, it would obviously produce results. I don't think they would be very significant at all in this country, mostly because we won't be executing dealers. :lol

Prohibition has NEVER worked in this country, especially with "The War on Drugs."
I AM A GUY
You're a fucking stupid bitch.
Orion....that's the one with a bunch of power chords and boringly harsh vocals, isn't it?

Offline 73109

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4999
  • Gender: Male
Re: Weed
« Reply #71 on: October 18, 2011, 07:50:28 PM »
Agreed. The only way to end drugs is to kill the dealers, and that is way too Draconian for my liking.

Offline Liberation

  • Posts: 859
  • Gender: Male
Re: Weed
« Reply #72 on: October 18, 2011, 08:00:23 PM »
I'd say the problem is on the other side - they're just so... attractive. There are always dumb people willing to try it even if they're aware that it's extremely addictive and lethal sooner or later, and it allows to make so much money that there are always people willing to distribute them. I think that's the side which needs to be struck, the problem is how. Fighting the consequences will never be that effective, because (except cases like the China example above, when you go for absolute terror, but we're talking about a civilised government) there is no reasonable way to make them afraid enough to stop selling/buying.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Weed
« Reply #73 on: October 18, 2011, 08:03:21 PM »
I'd say the problem is on the other side - they're just so... attractive.

Well, there's arguable health benefits to some. I won't go into the details of weed, as psychedelics (acid, mushrooms) have been shown to be rather healthy for a person. I think it's Cornell, but it's some Ivy League school, has been doing a continuing study on the effects of mushrooms, and the effects keep getting better and better for the person. Acid, I believe, has been shown to promote neuron growth, which can be very important in older persons.

Offline zxlkho

  • Official Dream Theater Hater.
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7666
  • Gender: Male
Re: Weed
« Reply #74 on: October 18, 2011, 08:05:10 PM »
I'd say the problem is on the other side - they're just so... attractive. There are always dumb people willing to try it even if they're aware that it's extremely addictive and lethal sooner or later, and it allows to make so much money that there are always people willing to distribute them. I think that's the side which needs to be struck, the problem is how. Fighting the consequences will never be that effective, because (except cases like the China example above, when you go for absolute terror, but we're talking about a civilised government) there is no reasonable way to make them afraid enough to stop selling/buying.

Are you saying that marijuana is addictive and lethal? That couldn't be further from the truth.
I AM A GUY
You're a fucking stupid bitch.
Orion....that's the one with a bunch of power chords and boringly harsh vocals, isn't it?

Offline Liberation

  • Posts: 859
  • Gender: Male
Re: Weed
« Reply #75 on: October 18, 2011, 08:08:01 PM »
I wasn't talking about marijuana, I meant all heavier drugs - I thought that's what the discussion jumped to.

I know marijuana is on the level of alcohol in terms of harm if not less.

Offline zxlkho

  • Official Dream Theater Hater.
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7666
  • Gender: Male
Re: Weed
« Reply #76 on: October 18, 2011, 08:24:52 PM »
I wasn't talking about marijuana, I meant all heavier drugs - I thought that's what the discussion jumped to.

I know marijuana is on the level of alcohol in terms of harm if not less.

Don't you see the hypocrisy in that though? Why is one illegal while the other is legal?
I AM A GUY
You're a fucking stupid bitch.
Orion....that's the one with a bunch of power chords and boringly harsh vocals, isn't it?

Offline MasterShakezula

  • Posts: 3733
  • Owes H $10
Re: Weed
« Reply #77 on: October 18, 2011, 08:31:36 PM »
In terms of hard drugs, I say that if a person is to make the decision to do them, let them make that decision and face the physical, mental, social, ect. consequences on their own terms.

If a person becomes addicted and ultimately dies as a result of cocaine addiction, it's their fall, their problem.

The gov. has no reason to make it their problem, and hence, should just allow it.  The benefits of replacing the cartels with actual companies as sellers (i.e. killing off the black market and the violence associated with it)  would definitely ought-weigh the downside of putting people at risk of becoming addicted to hard drugs through being able to buy them legally.  Besides, I bet that the majority of people who would willingly buy hard drugs buy them illegally right now. 

Offline Fuzzboy

  • I'm keepin the damn christmas avatar
  • Posts: 2285
  • Gender: Male
Re: Weed
« Reply #78 on: October 18, 2011, 08:49:14 PM »
I'd say the problem is on the other side - they're just so... attractive.

Well, there's arguable health benefits to some. I won't go into the details of weed, as psychedelics (acid, mushrooms) have been shown to be rather healthy for a person. I think it's Cornell, but it's some Ivy League school, has been doing a continuing study on the effects of mushrooms, and the effects keep getting better and better for the person. Acid, I believe, has been shown to promote neuron growth, which can be very important in older persons.

I'd like to add that MDMA (Ecstasy) has been successfully used in relationship counseling, among other things.

LSD also worked well in helping alcoholics overcome their addictions. Funny enough, I think it was the US government that tried to "disprove" this by tying alcoholics to beds, giving them ultra high doses of Acid and leaving them there. After that they went "see, it doesn't work"
women cops are a joke

to get a boner is just put pressure on the dick

Offline antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10293
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: Weed
« Reply #79 on: October 18, 2011, 08:56:54 PM »
I want to see marijuana legalized, but I feel like that would involve a lot of regulations favoring corporate control over the whole enterprise and restricting individual growers/consumers from doing what they please.

Offline ResultsMayVary

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4856
  • Gender: Male
  • Go Buckeyes!
Re: Weed
« Reply #80 on: October 18, 2011, 09:23:40 PM »
Legalize it and tax it.

It doesn't affect me, so why not. More revenue for the government and everyone wins.
Where would YOU be without prog?!
I'd be standing somewhere with dignity, respect, and bitches.
When Mike and Mob Unite, featuring the hit A Lawsuit in Lies

Offline Liberation

  • Posts: 859
  • Gender: Male
Re: Weed
« Reply #81 on: October 18, 2011, 09:40:30 PM »
I wasn't talking about marijuana, I meant all heavier drugs - I thought that's what the discussion jumped to.

I know marijuana is on the level of alcohol in terms of harm if not less.

Don't you see the hypocrisy in that though? Why is one illegal while the other is legal?
Meaning alcohol vs. marijuana or marijuana vs. other drugs?

If the first, I have to say I'm definitely not a fan of alcohol either (still never tried it at 19 and still not really interested; I'd also have a lot to say about it but that's another issue), but the difference is simply that everyone knows how it works. The problem I have with marijuana is that the information I've seen about it has always been either "see, this is pure evil" or "see, weed is good and harmless". I'd just like some decent, detailed, objective information about how it works and what exact risks are associated. However, I know what you mean and even though I have extreme distrust for any kind of drugs that influence the brain, I kinda also see it as an argument for.

If the second... I see a pretty strong division here, I haven't heard of anyone dying of marijuana overdose, while I don't think I have to comment on this regarding harder drugs. They're nothing else than a threat, and while the initial interest in marijuana after legalisation wouldn't probably mean much, I'm pretty certain if you legalised everything, that would mean deaths. They should be eliminated, but I think it's time to change the strategy, like I mentioned before. (Even if you didn't mean this, this is also an answer to MasterShakezula's post.)

Offline zxlkho

  • Official Dream Theater Hater.
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7666
  • Gender: Male
Re: Weed
« Reply #82 on: October 18, 2011, 09:53:53 PM »
If you want objective information you either need to a) try it yourself, or b)

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007

Everyone watch this.
I AM A GUY
You're a fucking stupid bitch.
Orion....that's the one with a bunch of power chords and boringly harsh vocals, isn't it?

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30560
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Weed
« Reply #83 on: October 18, 2011, 09:55:14 PM »
If the second... I see a pretty strong division here, I haven't heard of anyone dying of marijuana overdose, while I don't think I have to comment on this regarding harder drugs. They're nothing else than a threat, and while the initial interest in marijuana after legalisation wouldn't probably mean much, I'm pretty certain if you legalised everything, that would mean deaths. They should be eliminated, but I think it's time to change the strategy, like I mentioned before. (Even if you didn't mean this, this is also an answer to MasterShakezula's post.)
Yeah, not so much.  One of the main risks of death with drug usage comes from heroin, and with legality you'd see that number drop quite a bit.  You'd have insured quality and potency.  You'd have better access to opiate-antagonists like Naloxone, which will kick an overdose in it's ass.  You'd have access to needles to prevent AIDS and Hepatitis.  People would have actual, correct info on how to safely use.  It goes on and on.  Heroin overdoses are a result of the war on drugs and needn't happen.

As for the rest of them,  the risk usually comes with prolonged usage.  The Lynn Bias's of the world are few and far between.  I'm not sure what effect legalization would have on, say,  long term usage of coke.  There's no reason for it to have a direct effect.  It might cause more people to try it and eventually become addicted,  but it might just as well lead to more people being able to seek treatment,  given that they'll no longer be viewed as criminals or animals. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El JoNNo

  • Posts: 1779
  • Gender: Male
  • EMOTRUCCI
Re: Weed
« Reply #84 on: October 18, 2011, 10:22:53 PM »
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007

Everyone watch this.

I watching this right now and damn it is super biased. Not one death attributed to Weed? Bullshit. Merely inhaling smoke into your lungs can cause cancer.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Weed
« Reply #85 on: October 18, 2011, 10:27:07 PM »
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007

Everyone watch this.

I watching this right now and damn it is super biased. Not one death attributed to Weed? Bullshit. Merely inhaling smoke into your lungs can cause cancer.

I can find the actual study if you'd like, but you're ignoring the role THC has. Both tobacco smoke and marijuana smoke cause the same initial reaction in the lungs - but THC causes a different enzymical reaction, one which neutralizes the damages and prevents cancer from forming - whereas nicotine causes a different enzymical reaction which actually makes the damage worse (the exact technical issues were beyond my knowledge, but these were the conclusions of the study). There was even one study which showed a 50% decrease in lung cancer tumor size after medical marijuana. There are other studies which have shown that, on the large scale, people who smoke weed actually have a slightly lower rate of lung cancer than the general population.



Offline El JoNNo

  • Posts: 1779
  • Gender: Male
  • EMOTRUCCI
Re: Weed
« Reply #86 on: October 18, 2011, 10:31:46 PM »
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007

Everyone watch this.

I watching this right now and damn it is super biased. Not one death attributed to Weed? Bullshit. Merely inhaling smoke into your lungs can cause cancer.

I can find the actual study if you'd like, but you're ignoring the role THC has. Both tobacco smoke and marijuana smoke cause the same initial reaction in the lungs - but THC causes a different enzymical reaction, one which neutralizes the damages and prevents cancer from forming - whereas nicotine causes a different enzymical reaction which actually makes the damage worse (the exact technical issues were beyond my knowledge, but these were the conclusions of the study). There was even one study which showed a 50% decrease in lung cancer tumor size after medical marijuana. There are other studies which have shown that, on the large scale, people who smoke weed actually have a slightly lower rate of lung cancer than the general population.

Of course I'm ignoring the role. It has nothing to do with what I talking about. The mere inhalation of a toxin substance can have deadly affects on the body. To say that no one has ever died from those effects is dishonest.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Weed
« Reply #87 on: October 19, 2011, 12:12:43 AM »
Watched the documentary.  Should be legalized...but I still think any mind-altering substance should at least be subject to control.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline yeshaberto

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8986
  • Gender: Male
  • Somebody Get Me A Doctor! - VH
Re: Weed
« Reply #88 on: October 19, 2011, 12:19:33 AM »
yeah, agreed about some degree of control.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Weed
« Reply #89 on: October 19, 2011, 01:22:59 AM »
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007

Everyone watch this.

I watching this right now and damn it is super biased. Not one death attributed to Weed? Bullshit. Merely inhaling smoke into your lungs can cause cancer.

I can find the actual study if you'd like, but you're ignoring the role THC has. Both tobacco smoke and marijuana smoke cause the same initial reaction in the lungs - but THC causes a different enzymical reaction, one which neutralizes the damages and prevents cancer from forming - whereas nicotine causes a different enzymical reaction which actually makes the damage worse (the exact technical issues were beyond my knowledge, but these were the conclusions of the study). There was even one study which showed a 50% decrease in lung cancer tumor size after medical marijuana. There are other studies which have shown that, on the large scale, people who smoke weed actually have a slightly lower rate of lung cancer than the general population.

Of course I'm ignoring the role. It has nothing to do with what I talking about. The mere inhalation of a toxin substance can have deadly affects on the body. To say that no one has ever died from those effects is dishonest.

It's not a poison, the effects on the body are not poisonous; there are no THC receptors in the brain stem, it effects limited area's of the brain which are unrelated to bodily function. The problem is, you're classifying it as a "toxin" when there is no reason to classify it as such. It doesn't cause cancer's, nor any known long-term illnesses.

Watched the documentary.  Should be legalized...but I still think any mind-altering substance should at least be subject to control.

What do you classify as a mind-altering substance? That can quickly become quite the blanket term.

Offline El JoNNo

  • Posts: 1779
  • Gender: Male
  • EMOTRUCCI
Re: Weed
« Reply #90 on: October 19, 2011, 01:41:32 AM »
It's not a poison, the effects on the body are not poisonous; there are no THC receptors in the brain stem, it effects limited area's of the brain which are unrelated to bodily function. The problem is, you're classifying it as a "toxin" when there is no reason to classify it as such. It doesn't cause cancer's, nor any known long-term illnesses.

I just said it has nothing to do with the THC; inhaling smoke is toxic. And it is bullshit that the documentary is trying to portray Weed as something that is completely harmless. I understand that deaths because of cancer, impairment and an array of other deceases that may arise from inhaling a toxic substances are much lower in Weeds case. What I am saying is that, they are being intentionally dishonest by making it out to be harmless when it is not.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Weed
« Reply #91 on: October 19, 2011, 01:51:39 AM »

What do you classify as a mind-altering substance? That can quickly become quite the blanket term.

I don't know.  But I'm sure that any reasonable definition of a mind-altering substance would include marijuana.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Weed
« Reply #92 on: October 19, 2011, 01:58:28 AM »
It's not a poison, the effects on the body are not poisonous; there are no THC receptors in the brain stem, it effects limited area's of the brain which are unrelated to bodily function. The problem is, you're classifying it as a "toxin" when there is no reason to classify it as such. It doesn't cause cancer's, nor any known long-term illnesses.

I just said it has nothing to do with the THC; inhaling smoke is toxic. And it is bullshit that the documentary is trying to portray Weed as something that is completely harmless. I understand that deaths because of cancer, impairment and an array of other deceases that may arise from inhaling a toxic substances are much lower in Weeds case. What I am saying is that, they are being intentionally dishonest by making it out to be harmless when it is not.

You can't just use the term toxic however you want, in order for something to be toxic it has to be harmful or poisonous, neither of which accurately describe smoking marijuana and it's overall effect upon the user.

There is a well researched study which shows that heavy alcohol users, on average, live longer than complete tea-totalers, and that moderate drinkers live longer than anyone. There's reasons behind this, but basically, alcohol, a poison, can be a positive effect on the system when used in moderation. This isn't exactly what you would expect if all you consider is the ingestion of a toxic chemical and assume that this means bad/harmful effects.

It's not intentionally dishonest just because you don't agree with it.

Offline El JoNNo

  • Posts: 1779
  • Gender: Male
  • EMOTRUCCI
Re: Weed
« Reply #93 on: October 19, 2011, 02:08:35 AM »
It's not a poison, the effects on the body are not poisonous; there are no THC receptors in the brain stem, it effects limited area's of the brain which are unrelated to bodily function. The problem is, you're classifying it as a "toxin" when there is no reason to classify it as such. It doesn't cause cancer's, nor any known long-term illnesses.

I just said it has nothing to do with the THC; inhaling smoke is toxic. And it is bullshit that the documentary is trying to portray Weed as something that is completely harmless. I understand that deaths because of cancer, impairment and an array of other deceases that may arise from inhaling a toxic substances are much lower in Weeds case. What I am saying is that, they are being intentionally dishonest by making it out to be harmless when it is not.

You can't just use the term toxic however you want, in order for something to be toxic it has to be harmful or poisonous, neither of which accurately describe smoking marijuana and it's overall effect upon the user.

There is a well researched study which shows that heavy alcohol users, on average, live longer than complete tea-totalers, and that moderate drinkers live longer than anyone. There's reasons behind this, but basically, alcohol, a poison, can be a positive effect on the system when used in moderation. This isn't exactly what you would expect if all you consider is the ingestion of a toxic chemical and assume that this means bad/harmful effects.

It's not intentionally dishonest just because you don't agree with it.


So smoke inhalation isn't toxic? Wow!! All those people that died of smoke inhalation were just faking it. I really don't think you understand. You are still thinking I am talking about everything about Weed except the smoke inhalation. They are going on and on in the documentary about how there are no negative effects of good ole MJ. Hmmm perhaps mere smoke inhalation which is TOXIC to the body could be negatively impacting. I don't think there are any positive effects of inhaling smoke, at all.

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7549
Re: Weed
« Reply #94 on: October 19, 2011, 04:15:55 AM »
Just to butt in here, I had a quick look on some papers (by no means exhaustive i'll admit) but research does seem to indicate that the level of tar, benzanthracenes and benzpyrenes (known carcinogens) is higher in a cannabis joint compared to a cigarette of equivilent mass, due to the way the user smokes it and the typical lack of filters in a joint compared to a cigarette, not to mention the higher combustion temperature of cannabis compared to tobacco.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Offline ZeppelinDT

  • Resident Collectaholic
  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6650
  • Gender: Male
  • Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb!
Re: Weed
« Reply #95 on: October 19, 2011, 09:20:14 AM »
I think it's Cornell, but it's some Ivy League school, has been doing a continuing study on the effects of mushrooms

Whoa, whoa, whoa... I spent three years at Cornell... how come I never heard about this?!?!

I so would've volunteered to be one of those test subjects... :)

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30560
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Weed
« Reply #96 on: October 19, 2011, 09:33:16 AM »
Insofar as the carcinogenic aspect of MJ goes,  keep in mind that people smoke it in joint form because it's the simplest method under the current circumstances.  In a world where it was legal,  you'd have innovation from the private sector to provide better delivery,  and more willingness to use currently existing ones that are far healthier.  It's a well known fact that burning it is the least efficient way of getting the get-highs out of marijuana.  It's wasteful, it's unpleasant (to varying degrees), and it's unhealthy. 

Once again,  I'd suggest that the harm comes from the prohibition, not the drug itself.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline 7StringedBeast

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Weed
« Reply #97 on: October 19, 2011, 09:35:23 AM »
They have E-cigarettes that basically just emit THC vapor so you wouldn't get the carcinogens associated with burning and inhaling smoke.
If anyone in this thread judge him; heyy James WTF? about you in Awake In Japan? Then I will say; WTF about you silly?

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30560
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Weed
« Reply #98 on: October 19, 2011, 10:38:31 AM »
They have E-cigarettes that basically just emit THC vapor so you wouldn't get the carcinogens associated with burning and inhaling smoke.
I didn't realize they'd made that leap,  but it's awesome that they did.  The problem with vaporizing is that it's somewhat dangerous to have stoned people operating [often home-brewed] heating elements.  E-cigs are safe and practical.  This is exactly the sort of innovation I was hoping for.  And as it relates to this thread,  it's not something that the individual pothead can do himself.  Extracting oils is a PITA,  so it's really only practical if done commercially,  which is exactly the sort of thing that would be happening if it were legal. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline ZBomber

  • "The Analogy Guy"
  • Posts: 5502
  • Gender: Male
  • A Farewell to Kings
Re: Weed
« Reply #99 on: October 19, 2011, 10:42:20 AM »
I've used a vaporizer back before my friend's broke. Pretty sure that is one of the least harmful ways to smoke.

Also you guys are forgetting that you can eat weed.

Offline 7StringedBeast

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Weed
« Reply #100 on: October 19, 2011, 10:44:16 AM »
The thing that kind of discredits the pot movement when they bring up medicinal uses, the DEA offered up a THC pill to people with medical needs that would give them the benefits of MJ without the high.  The patients refused to take it saying they'd rather smoke it.  So basically they were telling them, I don't care about my ailments as much as I just want to get high.

But that's another story.  I think it should just be legal across the board.
If anyone in this thread judge him; heyy James WTF? about you in Awake In Japan? Then I will say; WTF about you silly?

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7549
Re: Weed
« Reply #101 on: October 19, 2011, 11:01:05 AM »
Insofar as the carcinogenic aspect of MJ goes,  keep in mind that people smoke it in joint form because it's the simplest method under the current circumstances.  In a world where it was legal,  you'd have innovation from the private sector to provide better delivery,  and more willingness to use currently existing ones that are far healthier.  It's a well known fact that burning it is the least efficient way of getting the get-highs out of marijuana.  It's wasteful, it's unpleasant (to varying degrees), and it's unhealthy.

You reckon? Because nicotine gum and e-cigarettes have been around for a while, and yet cigarettes are still the predominant form of nicotine delivery despite their issues.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30560
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Weed
« Reply #102 on: October 19, 2011, 11:08:57 AM »
The thing that kind of discredits the pot movement when they bring up medicinal uses, the DEA offered up a THC pill to people with medical needs that would give them the benefits of MJ without the high.  The patients refused to take it saying they'd rather smoke it.  So basically they were telling them, I don't care about my ailments as much as I just want to get high.

But that's another story.  I think it should just be legal across the board.
The only THC pill I'm aware of is Marinol,  and that will get you high as all fuck.  In fact,  some consider it a little too much.  People who smoke dope smoke to so the point of getting as high as they want to be.  Taking a pill of a fixed dosage isn't really conducive to that.  Marinol is also ridiculously expensive,  especially as a replacement for something you could grow on your patio for free.



Insofar as the carcinogenic aspect of MJ goes,  keep in mind that people smoke it in joint form because it's the simplest method under the current circumstances.  In a world where it was legal,  you'd have innovation from the private sector to provide better delivery,  and more willingness to use currently existing ones that are far healthier.  It's a well known fact that burning it is the least efficient way of getting the get-highs out of marijuana.  It's wasteful, it's unpleasant (to varying degrees), and it's unhealthy.

You reckon? Because nicotine gum and e-cigarettes have been around for a while, and yet cigarettes are still the predominant form of nicotine delivery despite their issues.
A lot of people who smoke do so because of the habit of smoking cigarettes.  There's a Mexican woman currently sitting 20' away in the break room that lights up a smoke every 20 minutes, takes one drag, and then lets it burn away in the ashtray.  Nicotine gum is great if your interest is in the nicotine, but it doesn't help if you have to have a burning smoke next to you all the time.

As it relates to grass,  there's a certain social aspect to passing a joint around, and that's not going to be replaced with e-cigs or brownies.  That said,  people who smoke around the house tend to prefer a pipe or a bong to rolling a joint.  That would likely be replaced if convenient vaporizing became an option. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline 7StringedBeast

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Weed
« Reply #103 on: October 19, 2011, 11:13:07 AM »
I don't know the name of the pill that was offered.  I do believe it was a pill that the DEA created themselves.  It's probably not on the market or anything like that.
If anyone in this thread judge him; heyy James WTF? about you in Awake In Japan? Then I will say; WTF about you silly?

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7549
Re: Weed
« Reply #104 on: October 19, 2011, 11:16:51 AM »
Pipes/Bongs are pretty much non existant in the UK. Joints are pretty much the standard here, so I think theres a cultural difference there.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman