Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » pot vs tobacco

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: pot vs tobacco
Paercival
Member
Member # 92

 - posted      Profile for Paercival   Email Paercival   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/1685.53652

very interesting, I actually know people who claim Pot is awesome because it isn't bad for you and use it instead of cigarretes


Posts: 203 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Animist
Member
Member # 674

 - posted      Profile for Animist   Email Animist   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course, that's ignoring the facts that no one (who is not an utter burnout, in which case they have more immediate problems than future respiratory disease) smokes three joints a day, and a joint isn't filled with thousands of other chemicals like a cigarette is.
Posts: 461 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's simply because Pot is illegal. If it were legalized, it would be marketed, and companies would sell joints rolled up with all the fancy chemicals that improved "taste" and the ammonia to increase addictivity. That's why I advocate *decriminalisation* rather than full legalisation. Let people grow their own weed, thus cutting smugglers and terrorists out of the lucrative loop.

Unlike Cocaine, Opiates, and DIAMONDS which are imported from countries whose trade supports atrocities, MJ has the capacity to be easily 100% homegrown. While purchase of cocaine, opiates and diamonds AUTOMATICALLY enrich some of the most dangerous organizations on the planet, MJ and its derivates only enrich thugs and potential terrorists by virtue of illegality.

From my observation, pot makes its smokers stupid. Compare that to alcohol, which makes its users violent as well as stupid. It's a no-brainer -- why should a country that obviously doesn't value the intelligence of its citizens make such a fuss about a drug that makes them docile and stupid? All the better to lead you with, my dear. Smoking the stuff should be made mandatory in prisons. Criminals who leave prisons will be less capable of committing crimes if they are fat, stupid, and lazy.


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From the article:

quote:
The cannabis smoked today is much more potent than that smoked in the 1960s -- more than 15 times as potent.

Look, I'm no friend of the weed, but I have little tolerance for BS. My understanding is that the first tests of cannibis potency were made in the 1970s. So why does the anti-cannibis right babble on about the potency of 1960s cannibis, given that such potency was never determined? What are these researchers smoking, and is it more safe than cannibis?

Finally, obviously sucking *any* kind of smoke is not going to be marvy for your health. But my understanding is that the weed is sometimes mixed into brownies, and has other forms of ingestion as well.


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This paper by the UN gives typical usage patterns of marijuana (and other illicit drugs), theoretical, and observed effects. Very interesting reading.
http://www.undcp.org/odccp/bulletin/bulletin_1977-01-01_2_page004.html#s010

I am bothered that they base their paper almost exclusively on older research, I'm certain that there has been a great deal of research since 1976.

LetterRip

edit - added a paragraph

[This message has been edited by LetterRip (edited November 13, 2002).]


Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JonathanTheOmnipotent
Member
Member # 797

 - posted      Profile for JonathanTheOmnipotent   Email JonathanTheOmnipotent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
1.) Pot really shouldn't be compared to smoking. It's potency is much more like that of alacohol, not tabacco. The only similarity is that the popular way is to smoke it.

2.) If you're smoking pot three times a day or more, it's just as bad as if you're getting piss drunk every day. Getting drunk isn't illegal, but it's obviously a problem if you're doing it every day.

3.) Pot doesn't have to smoked. There are lots of different creative ways to steam it or simply ingest it. I imagine that if pot was legalized, more people would be using alternative methods to get high from it. Wouldn't it be funny to see a bong being sold in a health food store?

4.) Legalizing pot would have a positive economic effect. Instead of spending so much money on pot which ultimately goes into the hands of a plethora of people who you don't want controlling American money, you can have all that profit remain within American borders. Less import. Well, maybe we'd get some pot from Jamaica for variety's sake.

5.) Since pot is easily grown by the individual, there should be steps taken to prevent large corporations like the cigarette companies coming into existence.

I've smoked pot...it burnt my throat like hell so I didn't keep going for very long. But I did have a space cake, and although it took a few hours to have any effect, the only negative was the worst case of cottonmouth I've ever had. I didn't go crazy and kill anybody. I just had a good time with my friends and then went to sleep.


Posts: 237 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JonathanTheOmnipotent
Member
Member # 797

 - posted      Profile for JonathanTheOmnipotent   Email JonathanTheOmnipotent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
6.) Plus, if you get addicted to any drug, there're probably unrelated issues at work. A perfectly happy individual does not seek out ways to ruin his life. If you're addicted to anything, be it drugs, the internet, TV, games, sex...the addiction is an escape from your problems in life. It is those problems that need to be taken away, not the drugs, or sex, or any of those things. The addiction needs to be stopped, but trying to make it illegal for everyone does not solve the real problem.
Posts: 237 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Animist
Member
Member # 674

 - posted      Profile for Animist   Email Animist   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete:

Excellent points. Interestingly enough, I told someone almost that exact same thing a few days ago: I don't want marijuana legalized, corporatized, and filled with six thousand poisons, I just want people to be able to choose to smoke it (and like you said, it grows like...well....a weed) and grow it without fear of persecution.


Posts: 461 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Glad to be with you on this one, Animist.

Don't get me wrong -- I am not for abdicating the war on drugs. I believe that we should ruthlessly stamp out the illegal opiates, cocaine, meth and the various date-rape drugs (such as ecstacy) whose harm is demonstrated. I would even take further steps against tobacco and alcohol, banning advertising for all addictive products, and ending agricultural subsidies for tobacco.

(That's another reason incidentally why I support decriminalization rather than legalization of MJ -- because I don't want to see marijuana growers receiving agricultural subsidies as tobacco growers now receive.)

I see decriminalization of mj as a key strategy to winning the war on drugs.

1. MJ is a gateway drug, but ONLY because its current legal status forces it into the black market. A popular & relatively harmless drug attracts people that would not normally be attracted to harder drugs, and makes them dependent on some of the most evil people alive, who naturally take advantage of this relationship to promote other illicit products and services. Decriminalizing MJ would end its effectiveness as a gateway drug.

2. Decriminalizing cannibis would free up resources to prosecute seriously dangerous drugs such as meth, heroin, and cocaine.

3. Decriminalizing cannibis would free up resources to prosecuting terrorism and other serious crimes. Cops & prosecutors would have to get off their lazy asses and fill their arrest quotas and prisons with real criminals rather than harmless spaced-out potheads. Lest you dismiss this, consider that 5 years ago, the state of Utah actually cut mandatory sentencing for violent sex offenders on the grounds that potheads were taking up so much jail room that there wasn't room left for rapists and child molesters. (Yes, Senator Lane Beatty actually made that argument, although I'll confess that he did not exactly word it that way...)

The most dangerous aspects of marijuana, both for mj users and for society, result from overzealous legislation and prosecution.


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alex
New Member
Member # 833

 - posted      Profile for Alex   Email Alex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why should we have the war on drugs in the first place?

The health of the people should not be the primary concern of the government. Freedom to live our lives the way we wish to should be the primary concern of the government! If someone wants to poison their body then why should the government stop them?

From what I've heard more deaths result from alcohol then from taking illegal drugs! We obviously know that making alcohol illegal was a stupid idea, why can't we realize that the war on drugs is just as stupid?


Posts: 2 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have provided ample justification above in this thread for continuing the war against certain drugs. If you are here for discussion, you could begin by addressing those arguments, but I'd appreciate if you'd do so on another thread, since the topic of this thread is "pot vs. tobacco."

[This message has been edited by Pete at Home (edited November 13, 2002).]


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KenBean
Member
Member # 603

 - posted      Profile for KenBean   Email KenBean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hi folks

OK OK...I'm one of those dirtbag tobacco users

I was probably addicted living with my father who smoked like a chimney....as well as a number of his friends who did likewise.

Having said all that, I have smoked a pipe since 1975 (sir walter raleigh AROMATIC MIXTURE), which is the smoothest, best tasting smoke in the world today at any price.

I must tell you that the "issue" of sidestream...or second hand...smoke is ridiculous. For most of history...and pre-history...human beings had good ole' healthy sidestream smoke from their campfires, crappy chimney design, and other heating methods that produced a LOT of coal smoke.

Personnally, I bend to the needs of others not to be bothered with my smoke and its smells and effects.

Pot is a nice vegetative stance for folks. Have fun and don't vote

The nice thing about tobacco is that one keeps one's basic stupidity under control, and it is a lifetime partner. One can smoke constantly all day, get the quiet buzz, and still function more or less adequately.

The best commercial against pot I ever saw was when these young men...living with mom...made the ironic remark..."Why is pot illegal anyway...weve been smoking it for years...AND NOTHING HAS HAPPENED". jUST AS THE MOM CALLED THEM DOWNSTAIRS.

So I will just smoke my pipe, enjoy hell out of it, because I truly don't look forward to my nineties anyway.

(In fact I'm not all excited about my eighties either

Finally, I enjoy being a bad influence on our children, and would rather pass from cancer...than senility.

Have fun and Best regards
Ken Bean


Posts: 1539 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pipe smoke doesn't make me choke second hand. Cigarrette and most cigar smoke do. IIRC the studies have been done on 2nd hand cigarrette smoke, not pipe smoke. From my experience, pipe smokers are generally more considerate as well. I think it's the whole culture that has grown up around a disposable item, as opposed to a refillable item. From my personal observation, cigarrette smokers are more likely to blow in your face, put their stuff out on a kid's hand, start fires carelessly, or litter.

As for coal smoke ... er., Ken, the dangers of coal smoke are well-established. Historicity is no defense against deadliness. Historically, people eat off lead plates, inhale lead fumes, and are frequently exposed to mercury and arsenic as well. Historically, they die from it.

If your argument is that 2nd-hand smoke will not destroy the human *species*, any more than coal smoke or hundreds of other common poisons have wiped us out, well that is true. But I hardly think that it is "absurd" to take safeguards against poisons that threaten individuals, even if they do not threaten the survival of the species.

[This message has been edited by Pete at Home (edited November 13, 2002).]


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anglachel
Member
Member # 647

 - posted      Profile for Anglachel     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just a quick note, Marijuana isn't the only drug which can be produced domestically. We can supply ourselves easily with cocaine, opium, and all artificials.

Being as I'm 3 months into a year long probation, and have lost about $1800 on a mj posession charge (that's nine summer months making fries by a barbeque pit), I'm for legalization. And in a horrid fit of irony, a girl got sexually asaulted that same night about a half mile away, good thing that cop spent an hour busting me for being a menace to the public.


Posts: 214 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
timeskimo
Member
Member # 731

 - posted      Profile for timeskimo   Email timeskimo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On legalization or decriminalization of any drugs, from MJ & cannabis to crystal meth to tobacco to alcohol, my stance is that the government should at least try to be consistent. Let the relatively harmless ones be decriminalized, possibly legalized, based on the damage they can do to users and the people around users. But do that for all of them. No exemptions. If tobacco's worse than pot, either decriminalize pot or illegalize tobacco. Judging by tobacco companies' power, one will be impossible. So do the other. Under no circumstances should the really dangerous ones be allowed. But consistency, folks, that'll make me happy.
-Timesk

Posts: 96 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Just a quick note, Marijuana isn't the only drug which can be produced domestically. We can supply ourselves easily with cocaine, opium, and all artificials.

Not easily nationwide on the small/local scale as with mj. Correct me if I am wrong, but there isn't a serious opium market -- it's the derivative heroin that sells, and that takes equiptment to make. MJ is potentially a local production/sale/use, wheras with heroin & cocaine, something (component or equiptment) has to cross a border -- a state if not a federal border.

Yes, most cops that I know would much rather spend their time padding their resumes with pothead busts than delving into the headache of prosecuting a rape case. That's why so many of them fight tooth and nail against pot decriminalization. Only the real cops are for it.


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Animist
Member
Member # 674

 - posted      Profile for Animist   Email Animist   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.ishmael.org/Education/Writings/OnInvestments.shtml

This speach by Daniel Quinn is the first original take on the Drug War I've heard, ever.

I instinctively tend toward universal decriminalization, though this has much more to do with my dislike (utter hatred) of centralized authority than any real consideration of the issues (with the complete exception of marijuana, that is).


Posts: 461 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alex
New Member
Member # 833

 - posted      Profile for Alex   Email Alex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What justification for having the war on drugs continue? All you have said was that it was harmful.

And my point was that who cares if a substance is harmful? If your an adult the choice should be yours.

Anyway I think you were the first person to mention the war on drugs in this thread.

BTW if pot is made legal, why don't you want companies making it? People would still have the choice of making it in their home, or buying the chemcial loaded kind from the store. Sure it might make it more addicting but who cares? If someone wants to screw their life thats their choice.


Posts: 2 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
All you have said was that it was harmful.

Wrong. I said this as well:

quote:
Unlike Cocaine, Opiates, and DIAMONDS which are imported from countries whose trade supports atrocities, MJ has the capacity to be easily 100% homegrown. While purchase of cocaine, opiates and diamonds AUTOMATICALLY enrich some of the most dangerous organizations on the planet, MJ and its derivates only enrich thugs and potential terrorists by virtue of illegality.

Note that I place diamonds in this category as well, even though diamonds are not a drug. Like tea was during the 1800s, cocaine, opiates and diamonds have become part of a trade that promotes terrorism, human suffering and even slavery. Thus to attack the trading of these commodities is to promote our national defense, freedom, and the well-being of the whole human race. Perhaps that does not matter to you, but it matters to me.

quote:
Anyway I think you were the first person to mention the war on drugs in this thread.

I was, but I did so to highlight why MJ was different, which fits the topic of "pot vs. tobacco."

As for your third question, people do not need advertising in order to make an adult choice as to whether to poison their bodies.

[This message has been edited by Pete at Home (edited November 14, 2002).]


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Animist
Member
Member # 674

 - posted      Profile for Animist   Email Animist   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A different perspective might be that the high marijuana causes are a gift of the plant and that it should therefore be honored, not factory farmed, genetically altered and filled with poisons.

I think Alex's post is one the two best demonstration of the limits of Libertarianism I've seen in a long time (the other being a post on Michael Moore's forum which asked the question, "If I own a thousand acres of pristine forest and I want to clearcut it and turn it into a toxic waste dump, what gives anyone the right to stop me? It's MY land.")


Posts: 461 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well-said, Animist. There's also something profoundly ironic about Libertarian arguments for drugs and systems that if permitted, result in a net loss of liberty. It's like the Virginia Slims commercial line "you've come a long way baby." I find it sinister to equate freedom with enslavement to an addictive drug. Would "Libertarians" have justified the slave trade?

Still, the worst hypocrites IMO on the pot argument are the Republicans, the supposed champions of states' rights who turn into rabid federalists when it comes to the question of marijuana. I love the looks on these guys' faces when I tell them that the Constitution was originally printed on hemp.

[This message has been edited by Pete at Home (edited November 14, 2002).]


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JonathanTheOmnipotent
Member
Member # 797

 - posted      Profile for JonathanTheOmnipotent   Email JonathanTheOmnipotent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
BTW if pot is made legal, why don't you want companies making it? People would still have the choice of making it in their home, or buying the chemcial loaded kind from the store. Sure it might make it more addicting but who cares? If someone wants to screw their life thats their choice.
--Alex

Because the government might go ahead and decide for some reason that you're not allowed to grow your own pot, that you have to buy it from one of these big companies. If a senator has a vested interest in pot (ie: large amounts of shares in pot stock), he'd be more inclined to pass a bill subsidizing larger companies who go out of their way buying up all of the little people's marijuana farms. The next step is that stores only sell pot from these companies, and knowing the laziness of the American public, nobody would want to roll their own joint--assuming that congress don't just flat out make it illegal to grow you're own marijuana because of some invented danger asssociated with it. Then not only do you have big tobacco companies, but you have big marijuana companies as well. I'm kind of pessimistic in that way.

quote:
I think Alex's post is one the two best demonstration of the limits of Libertarianism I've seen in a long time (the other being a post on Michael Moore's forum which asked the question, "If I own a thousand acres of pristine forest and I want to clearcut it and turn it into a toxic waste dump, what gives anyone the right to stop me? It's MY land."
--Animist

It's your land, but you can't do whatever you want on your land. You can't poach endangered species on your land. You can't have a horse farm on your land unless you get permission from your neighbors (unless you have such a large piece of property, they would never be able to smell the stable). You can't do things on your land that have an adverse effect on the rest of the land in your country.


Posts: 237 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JonathanTheOmnipotent
Member
Member # 797

 - posted      Profile for JonathanTheOmnipotent   Email JonathanTheOmnipotent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well-said, Animist. There's also something profoundly ironic about Libertarian arguments for drugs and systems that if permitted, result in a net loss of liberty. It's like the Virginia Slims commercial line "you've come a long way baby." I find it sinister to equate freedom with enslavement to an addictive drug. Would "Libertarians" have justified the slave trade?
--Pete at Home

I'm sorry, but that's not my idea of being enslaved by a drug. That's being enslaved by marketing. And if you think people are so easily enslaved, why should anyone who hasn't graduated from an Ivy League school get to make choices for themselves?


Posts: 237 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JonathanTheOmnipotent
Member
Member # 797

 - posted      Profile for JonathanTheOmnipotent   Email JonathanTheOmnipotent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
PS: Did you know canvas (like our jeans), originally comes from the word "cannibis"?
Posts: 237 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

you said

quote:
Not easily nationwide on the small/local scale as with mj. Correct me if I am wrong, but there isn't a serious opium market -- it's the derivative heroin that sells, and that takes equiptment to make.

Actually it would not be difficult to produce most drugs on the local scale, with the exception of cocaine.

The market being predominately heroin, as opposed to less addictive opiates, is that heroin has the most 'bang for the buck'. Ditto for crack cocaine. The more dangerous and addictive forms of these drugs are generally taken by those individuals who cannot afford the less addictive/safer versions. Thus opium using doctors are generally addicted to regular opium and eschew heroin, powdered cocaine is prefered by the wealthy, whereas the poor use heroin and crack.

Personally I would prefer only government production and distribution of such drugs. With the money 'lock boxed' for limited purposes such as drug treatment, education, health, and research. There could be no advertising for the drugs (asside from a simple whitepages/ yellowpages/ internet ad...), and the sales location would have to be inconveniently located, etc. Resale to children and other odious uses would still have major penalties (perhaps life imprisionment or death?), and usage might be banned for certain professions (and grounds for dismissal.), and usage might be restricted to certain locations (or banned from certain locations and situations, ie using during pregnancy, etc.). It would also be preferable to ban usage with other combinations of drugs (ie alcohol is implicated in the vast majority of known problems - for instance crack babies with long term problems are mostly from the interaction of alcohol and crack - 'crackahol').

Of course, this would peeve a number of individuals who are pushing for the legalization of drugs (in that they have the ulterior motive of wanting to make the profit off of them). It would also anger current illegal drug producers (there goes a major source of their revenue). It would also anger current legal drug producers (both of the perscription kind, since some prescriptions are known to be semirecreational..., and of the nonperscription - such as alcohol and cigarettes)

I figure since it would upset so many 'bad actors' it must be a good thing <grin>.

I can't claim credit for the 'government monopoly' on drug production idea, blame/credit Piers Anthony for that (Bio of a Space Tyrant series...).

LetterRip


Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sounds reasonable, LR; I don't think that such measures would be necessary for mj, but would be tolerable. The trouble is that the Republicans here would betray their "states rights" principles and prevent any local or state government from trying such an experiment, even though this would be the best hope in the war on drugs. I do think that sterilization should be made a requirement for receiving cocaine or opiates, though. Fix the crack-holes & save the babies.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anglachel
Member
Member # 647

 - posted      Profile for Anglachel     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As the current administration has shown in its treatment of California's medical marijuana coops, Republicans don't really care about state's rights when it comes to the drug war. Come to think of it they don't care much for individual rights either when it comes to the drug war.
Posts: 214 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Exactly. The Republican position on the war on pot is wholesale betrayal both of these key Republican principles. I know that it's hard for anyone here to recognise what I just said since Everard & others work so hard to paint me as the arch-Republican villain, but fact is that I am Republican by default, and if the Democratic party would veer a little more towards moderate liberalism, and a little away from anti-American Europopulism, I'd consider jumping ship. I'm in for the principle, not for the party.

[This message has been edited by Pete at Home (edited November 14, 2002).]


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Celestial Mechanic
Member
Member # 435

 - posted      Profile for Celestial Mechanic   Email Celestial Mechanic   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think it it is interesting to note MJ's opponents sometimes claim MJ is harmful over long periods of time to the frontal lobe and causes growths of oral cancer along the upper esophagus and lower nasal cavaties.

Yet:
Neurochemistry, still today, fails to be able to conclusively even show how the brain works. Scientists have proposed lovely hypotheses about what potassium and other molecoles do when they pass through the myelin sheath of nerve cells and what different amounts and rates of these chemical transfers mean. They have even created a hypothetical compound, seratonin, which has never even been proven to exist! But forget that, we have cute models and engaging computer simulations in which dramaticized seratonin molecules "fill" holes in the axions of nerve cells to produce "happiness." I would like to say a resounding BS. This stuff is not only guesswork, but such elaborate guesswork that the public now seems to think it is fact.

Yeah, we've NEVER known how anti-depressants or pyschotropics work, yet the 10 year study showing prozac to be the fraud serious doctors always knew it was was such a shock to everyone.

To keep this on subject and from becoming a rant on the modern pseudo-science of biological psychiatry, MJ's opponents claim MJ damages nerve cells and dulls axionic connection and electric uptake speed. Forget the fact that those ardent crusaders don't even know what those things are (because NOONE does) they will use any means necessary to protect us from ourselves.

[This message has been edited by Celestial Mechanic (edited November 14, 2002).]


Posts: 479 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Animist
Member
Member # 674

 - posted      Profile for Animist   Email Animist   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jonathan:

"It's your land, but you can't do whatever you want on your land. You can't poach endangered species on your land. You can't have a horse farm on your land unless you get permission from your neighbors (unless you have such a large piece of property, they would never be able to smell the stable). You can't do things on your land that have an adverse effect on the rest of the land in your country."

My point was that I disagreed with that statement.

"That's being enslaved by marketing. And if you think people are so easily enslaved, why should anyone who hasn't graduated from an Ivy League school get to make choices for themselves?"

A better question might be, why should anyone who HAS graduated from an Ivy League school get to make choices for themselves?


Posts: 461 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JonathanTheOmnipotent
Member
Member # 797

 - posted      Profile for JonathanTheOmnipotent   Email JonathanTheOmnipotent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you're saying nobody is qualified to make choices for themselves? If Ivy Leaugue graduates can't, then who is better equipped to do so?
Posts: 237 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Celestial,

Pot contains higher amounts per joint of Benzanthracene and Benzopyrene than do cigars, cigaretes or pipe tobacco. Both chemicals are known carcinogens complicit in oral cancer. (However that is higher concentration , not higher exposure for typical usage patterns so a typical cigarette user gets higher exposure than a typical pot smoker...)
http://millennium3.org.uk/bradford/download/oralscc.pdf

As to Serotonin (5HT) - it has been identified in vitro, and there are a number of known receptors for it.

As to

quote:
Neurochemistry, still today, fails to be able to conclusively even show how the brain works.

And to this day we've failed to conclusively show how gravity works <grin>. We know a great deal about neurochemistry and neurobiology. We know the metabolic pathways for many neurotransmitters, have identified numerous receptors, we know the structure and function of some receptors and have models of how the protiens physically change when bound, we've identified DNA, proteins, hormones, etc. that are important for regulating various parts of neural development, we have fNMR and PET scans showing brain activity associated with various emotional states and behaviors, and changes in brain activity associated with the taking of various drugs and medicines, we have lession studies of changes in behavior when individuals lose functional areas of the brain, we have lesion and knock out studies that show what happens when animal models with similar neurochemistry lose specific receptors, or change regulation of receptors, etc, and an enormous amount of other stuff.

Your view of our current state of knowledge of neurobiology and neurochemistry has no relation to reality, and reveals substantial ignorance of even basic knowledge in the field.

LetterRip

[This message has been edited by LetterRip (edited November 14, 2002).]


Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Your view of our current state of knowledge of neurobiology and neurochemistry has no relation to reality

Yow, LR! That's the harshest thing I've ever heard you say on this forum. Am I being a bad influence on you?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Heheh,

I think that is pretty close to the harshest I've been on this board, but it really annoyed me... I do blame your bad influence <grin>

Seriously though, I think vective, insult, or even 'harshness' is almost always counterproductive, so I try to avoid almost universally even if I feel it is justified.

I feel some regret at having posted that last sentence or so, but ah well, what is done is done.

LetterRip


Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Celestial Mechanic
Member
Member # 435

 - posted      Profile for Celestial Mechanic   Email Celestial Mechanic   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LR, I am sorry if my comments seem to suggest ignorance or inadequacy to you. Perhaps you could describe to the rest of us the large missing gap of information of what the potassium and sodium transfers mean? Even if seratonin's existance is granted, it itself doesn't pass into the neuron. Only two chemicals do that. I take it you understand what they do and what they're movements and transfers mean?

[This message has been edited by Celestial Mechanic (edited November 15, 2002).]


Posts: 479 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Celestial,

via endocytosis and ion transport, there are numerous (hundereds and probably thousands...) chemicals that pass into and out of a neuron.

Are you refering to common ions only? (potassium, sodium, calcium, chloride which still leaves us four)

Could you clarify your question a bit, and perhaps give a pointer to your source of 'information'?

LetterRip


Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1