Medicinal Marijuna

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Dec 2 2004, 6:52 pm
In response to Gughunter
I would have to agree. As long as it's made clear on the outside whether it's a smoking environment or not (and who wouldn't advertise what they obviously consider to be a desirable feature?) then I have no problem with business owners deciding for themselves, and then customers and potential employees doing the same.

I can't eat in a KC Masterpieces BBQ joint because the wood smoke irritates me and burns my eyes. I imagine somebody with the wrong asthma or severe allergies might be in serious danger in such an environment. Do I want the government to step in and make KC Masterpieces use an electric grill? No, and I'd argue with anybody who did.
Dec 2 2004, 7:01 pm
In response to Hedgemistress
Hedgemistress wrote:
I mean, take a step back and look at your reaction to whoever it was that said a guy high on pot caused a fatal car accident. "What were the circumstances?", you asked. Well, that's actually a pretty neutral response compared to many I've seen in similar circumstances, with the pro-pot crowd angrily denouncing it and even going so far as to say that marijuana has never caused a car accident.

Yes, I had considered a more defensive position, but could not justify it in my own head, so I asked for more information in hopes I could find a weak point and exploit it. Ok, so I sometimes play dirty. :P

Is it really so hard to believe that a drug which reportedly makes you "mellow" and "giggly" could cause car accidents?

Absolutely not. I've driven only a handful of times, my recent excursion resulted in an accident (no, I was not high). I know how much attention must be paid to the nearly infinite variables occuring all around you, and any intoxicating substance will impair your ability to operate the vehicle in a safe manner. But, of the substances known for causing accidents, pot is so low on the scale to be almost immeasurable.

Most cases I've seen, marijuana causes the driver to actually be more aware of their driving, becoming almost paranoid, focused intently on the road because they know they are high and that they could be in an accident. I know, it's a weak argument, but it's true.

Also, if the person was getting high at the time, a hand (or even two) might be busy with a pipe, bong or blunt, resulting in almost no control. I am witness to numerous acts such as this where the driver is busy lighting a pipe, steering with a knee. That's an accident waiting to happen, I'll admit. But the distraction in these cases could be anything. Swap the pot pipe out with a cell phone and cup of coffee, and the danger is the same. The substance, in this particular scinereo, is of little consequence.

I'm not a driver, but are "mellow" and "giggly" honestly great qualities to have in a driver? And doesn't being stoned do something alter the responsiveness of your pupils? How safe is it to drive at night if your pupils won't dilate properly?

I can't say anything about the pupils. I haven't heard this about marijuana, only psychoactives like mushrooms and LSD. It may be true, I don't know. And I personally have nothing against a person driving me around under the influence of marijuana, or alchohol really. That's a quirk in me, though. I don't expect anyone to share this trust. I can understand if someone doesn't want to ride with a driver that's high, though I've never seen any evidence to suggest people under the influence aren't capable drivers.

And look at this example of reasoning.
Isn't that awfully circular? The fact that anger and pot coincide within a person, or stealing and pot, etc., doesn't prove it's a causal relationship... but it doesn't prove it's a casual one, either. :P

Alright, I conceed this point. Marijuana can cause parinoia, which may make some people uncomfortable and angry. This is more pronounced in heavy users over long periods of time, but the possibility does exist. Sure, ok, pot can make some people angry. It's not, however, a universal phenomenon. Some people experience it, many do not. The way the press and uneducated denouncers make it out, though, it is.

Reefer madness! Oh no! See the hate in their red eyes! They want to rape you! Satan is in their minds! Suffer the little children!

Puuhlease.... -_-'

~X
Dec 2 2004, 7:06 pm
In response to Kusanagi
I disagree. We are a society reliant upon drugs. Morphine, asprin, antibiotics, the list goes on and on. Drugs have done more to extend and enrich the lives of everyone than cars ever will. The secret is knowing when to use them, and how much. Anything can kill you in excess.

~X
Dec 2 2004, 7:23 pm
In response to Spuzzum
Spuzzum wrote:
Bullcrap. Have you even seen the examples of waitresses who got throat cancer and lung cancer -- who've never smoked a day in their lives -- from working in restaurants which allow smoking?

Nope, but I have heard of airline stewardesses getting cancer from the smoke aboard planes, when they used to allow smoking on planes. Still, their cases aren't the norm. Walking by someone smoking a cigarette isn't going to affect you, eating in a resturant that has a smoking section isn't going to give you cancer.

Second-hand smoke is definitely carcinogenic, all the same as asbestos fibres are carcinogenic; you don't have to inhale at the source to get the particles from it, because the particles are airborne.

Well, duh, but the concentration is almost always so low as to be uneffective. I smoke hand-rolled cigarettes with no filters. I take in about as much smoke as a person can. I may never get cancer, even if I upped my intake to 5 packs a day. Passing me by on the street isn't going to kill you. If it did, I'd already be dead.

Not carcinogenic, my ass, man. If you're inhaling it yourself, how the hell would the same stuff you're inhaling (vapour and smoke) not have the exact same effects on other people? =P

Because my lungs have already extracted a great deal of the stuff. The exhale is pretty harmless, unless I shotgun it directly into your mouth, which I have no intention of doing. And the burning end itself doesn't produce a great deal of smoke. You take in more pollutants and carcinigens just walking down a city street. Car exaust is more harmful than second-hand smoke, but they aren't banning outdoor patios, are they?

The problem is that it makes other people at risk; smokers are a minority group (here in B.C., it's only 17%). Why should other people have to give up on going to certain places because they're the majority group?

So what? Oh, you're a majority. So are poor people, but they don't run the country, do they? I'll be damned if a mob is going to tell me what I can and cannot legally do in my own place of business. Especially when their allegations are based in myth and hearsay.

Shouldn't the people who choose to be in the minority have to go to their own places? More importantly, why should non-smokers have to be put at risk anywhere they go?

Then give us our places! Give us our bars, our resturants and our pool halls. Go elsewhere if you don't like it. No one is forcing you into these establishments. You have no rights to enter them, they aren't public property. They are privately owned businesses run by proprieters whos main body of clientel may very well be smokers. There are bars here where you can't smoke, and I hardly go to them. Thankfully, there are bars where you can. Leave it up to the owners to decide, it's their business.

The reasoning behind this is that if a restaurant is allowed to let smokers in, then they will do so. That's 17% of the entire population that you can have now. That's a lot of business; a restaurant owner would have to be a fool to ignore the potential money involved from allowing a smoker in if it wasn't illegal. But that 17% puts the remaining 83% at risk.

You're looking at it too generally. Sure, it may only be 17% of the entire population, including children, people in comas and nursing homes. But, a bar's patrons are more likely 80% smoker and 20% non-smoker. It is bad business for them to oust their majority because some group who doesn't even frequent there wants to impose their ideal. It may sound pretty, but for many business owners, it's downright disgusting.

Frankly, I think they should just move straight to a prohibition by setting a three-year deadline or some such, and offer any smokers free treatment in order to help them quit. Unfortunately, so doing would bankrupt the government, since they get so much money from tobacco companies. And this is the primary reason why the world economy sucks... it's partially based on killing people.

Eh, survival of the fittest. We have to make some compensations for the way we mess up natural selection. :P

~X
Dec 2 2004, 7:42 pm
In response to JordanUl
Not many people know this, but we were close to legalizing it back in Carter's administration. One politition even bought a processing plant in preparation for the expected event. Then Regan came into office and everything went down the tubes. There were rumors that Clinton might legalize it, but no one was holding their breath. :P

The only sane reason I can see for it not to be legalized is the fact that it would remove a very powerful tool from law enforcement officials. It's used by police as an excuse to search you, your vehicle or your home. It gives them probable cause, which means they don't need a warrant. If it were illegal, they couldn't strip down Johnny's car for noticing a roach in the ashtray.

~X
Dec 2 2004, 8:08 pm
I'm kind of leery about psychoactive drugs period; I don't care if they have a positive effect or a negative effect, or whether or not they're safe or will give you cancer or will make you cook babies in the oven. I just don't think we ought to be mucking with our mental processes period outside of matters of life and death. I realize that there is a rather huge gray area here, and a lot of questions as to where to draw the line--but I think as a general rule of thumb, less is better here.

Unfortunately that doesn't really answer the question; while philosophically I think people shouldn't use marijuana, there are many things that people shouldn't do (some of them considerably more significant) which nonetheless are still legal. Marijuana definitely doesn't warrant the aggressive, large-scale law enforcement campaigns that it's generally subjected to; while I'm not thrilled about the idea of medicinal marijuana, ultimately I do view it as being in about the same ballpark as prescription drugs.
Dec 2 2004, 8:50 pm
In response to Xooxer
Nope, but I have heard of airline stewardesses getting cancer from the smoke aboard planes, when they used to allow smoking on planes. Still, their cases aren't the norm. Walking by someone smoking a cigarette isn't going to affect you, eating in a resturant that has a smoking section isn't going to give you cancer.

Not guaranteed to, but it's not guaranteed not to either. There's a shadow of a chance, and when there's no cure for cancer, people should take notice of something like that.


Well, duh, but the concentration is almost always so low as to be uneffective. I smoke hand-rolled cigarettes with no filters. I take in about as much smoke as a person can. I may never get cancer, even if I upped my intake to 5 packs a day. Passing me by on the street isn't going to kill you. If it did, I'd already be dead.

You're quite likely to get cancer, unless you're growing your own tobacco. And in that case you get unhealthy charcoal deposits in your lungs instead of the other junk. It won't give you cancer, but it'll sure as heck give you a hacking cough and destroy your endurance. =)


[snip]If you're inhaling it yourself, how the hell would the same stuff you're inhaling (vapour and smoke) not have the exact same effects on other people?[/snip]

Because my lungs have already extracted a great deal of the stuff. The exhale is pretty harmless, unless I shotgun it directly into your mouth, which I have no intention of doing.

I think you're underestimating the composition of smoke. What you can see is what hasn't been extracted. Particles don't just precipitate out of the smoke, the smoke is the particles.


And the burning end itself doesn't produce a great deal of smoke.

That knock on your door is the law of conservation of matter/energy paying you a visit. ;-)


You take in more pollutants and carcinigens just walking down a city street. Car exaust is more harmful than second-hand smoke, but they aren't banning outdoor patios, are they?

No, but they're constantly increasing the environmental restrictions on vehicles, and are quickly moving towards clean fuels, even in light of the petroleum industry's massive contributions to the economy.

Pretty sad, really, that they're willing to phase out a non-renewable resource that kills lots of people, but aren't willing to phase out a renewable resource that kills lots of people.


So what? Oh, you're a majority. So are poor people, but they don't run the country, do they? I'll be damned if a mob is going to tell me what I can and cannot legally do in my own place of business. Especially when their allegations are based in myth and hearsay.

Technically, all land is under the jurisdiction of a government. It's not your place of business so much as it is your place of business under the laws of the municipality you're in, under the laws of the state you're in, under the laws of the country you're in.

It's still illegal to shoot someone in a house. It's much faster and the effects are more instantly noticeable, but it's lethal all the same. Or, shouldn't I have a right to slowly poison someone who enters my house, such that after 20 or 30 years of doses the effects will be fatal? Sure, it's intentional, but they chose to come in my house.


[snip]There are bars here where you can't smoke, and I hardly go to them. Thankfully, there are bars where you can. Leave it up to the owners to decide, it's their business.[/snip]

I didn't even know those existed. But then, I've been operating on the stereotype of bars because the bars I've seen haven't been decent. People who might actually want to go to bars to meet people and have fun might not be going because they perceive all bars the same way as I did before I read that.


You're looking at it too generally. Sure, it may only be 17% of the entire population, including children, people in comas and nursing homes. But, a bar's patrons are more likely 80% smoker and 20% non-smoker. It is bad business for them to oust their majority because some group who doesn't even frequent there wants to impose their ideal. It may sound pretty, but for many business owners, it's downright disgusting.

I know I'd want to go to a bar if they weren't dens that reeked of tobacco and sweat. =P

My response to the paragraph above this one states that the smokers might only be the majority because the non-smokers assume that most bars are the same.
Dec 2 2004, 9:30 pm
In response to Theodis
Theodis wrote:
Even if it's not causing physical damage it doesn't mean it isn't cuasing discomfort. Regardless I highly dought having that crap in my lungs isn't doing anything bad.

So you're uncomfortable with me smoking in public? I'm uncomfortable with you complaining about it. Perhaps the smokers of the world should unite and ban complaining in public places too. I'm sure it's doing no one any good. It leads to stress which has been proven to contribute to disease, ulcers and sometimes heart failure. I don't want you're complaints polluting my body.

Funny that most the people I have run into that use the stuff are jerks, theives, or irresponsible. May not be the drug that causes it but I have still yet to run into any decent people that use it.

You have, you just don't know it. Probably because of this pre-concieved notion about what a pot smoker is. They don't want to be seen as bad people for enjoying a toke now and again, or they don't want to advertise the fact for fear of being hassled by the law. You'd probably be shocked to learn who smokes.

~X
Dec 2 2004, 11:25 pm
In response to Xooxer
But, of the substances known for causing accidents, pot is so low on the scale to be almost immeasurable.

It sure is, when you write off all cases of marijuana causing an accident or, if something else is in the mix, foist all the blame off onto it.

I'm taking a quick look for statistics (not sure what you'd accept, since we "know" the government and the media are biased, right?)... my first Google attempt turned up this lovely response to the question of marijuana and driving: "I DRIVE BETTER WHEN I AM STONED OUT OF MY GORE EATING MCDONALDS FLYING 80 MILES AN HOUR AN A RESIDENTIAL AREA!!!"

Yeah. Here we have a clearly objective person whose brain has not been damaged by drugs, making it clear that marijuana does make him an extra-cautious driver.

But we all know how I feel about anecdotal evidence... well, there is the tired old "1 in every 3 drunk driver fatality tested positive for THC." Now the potheads are quick to point out that this particular substance can linger in your body for up to a month, so this doesn't mean all those people died while high.

Which, in strangely arrogant biased pothead logic, somehow translates to, "None of them, or a vanishingly small percentage of them, were high." What kind of messed up logic is it where people who have been taking a drug that impairs judgement, response time, motor control (argue any of those points if you want) in the last month before they pilot an automobile into a fatal car crash are automatically assumed to have not been using that drug immediately before the crash?

Oh, here's some interesting statistics from an apparently pro-drug website, norml.org. The headline from the website is: "STUDY FINDS CANNABIS NOT CAUSE OF AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS." And here's the statistics: "The study of 2,500 accidents, which matched the blood alcohol levels of injured drivers with details from police reports, found drug-free drivers caused the accidents in 53.5 per cent of cases."

Did you hear that? 53.5 percent of injured drivers were drug-free! That's a majority! Only 46.5 percent, a minority, were on drugs. Wow. Maybe toking and driving shouldn't be optional any more. Maybe they should try to rig up some reefer into the heating system of the car, or something...

"A study spokesman, Dr Jason White, said the difference was not great enough to be statistically significant but could be explained by anecdotal evidence that marijuana smokers were more cautious and drove more slowly because of altered time perception."

Sure. A scientist said that. Note that they don't quote him directly. More research is needed to understand whether a sudden, overwhelming sense of oneness with it all further improves driving skills.

Note that the site claims this proves drug users (marijuana smokers in particular) are less likely to be drivers in an accident. It doesn't. It proves that drivers in an accident are marginally less likely to be marijuana smokers. If you don't understand the difference (I'm sure Xooxer will, but there's others here), think about what the Hatter told Alice: "You might as well say that 'I see what I eat' means the same as 'I eat what I see.'".

More people don't smoke pot than do (no, not "everybody tokes." Some shockingly white collar and respectable folks that society wouldn't think of do, but that doesn't mean everybody does it), and therefore, more non-potsmokers will be involved in accidents.

Not only is the difference not statistically significant, but without knowing what percentage of the population not only smokes marijuana but also drives while high, the statistics don't prove anything in marijuana's favor. All they prove is that about half the car accidents out there involved marijuana. Almost half! 46.5%! And if less than 46.5% of drivers are driving while stoned (not an unfair assumption, please warrant that)... well this is really pretty damning, isn't it?

Or do you still want me to believe that in none of those cases, or a vanishingly small percentage of them, marijuana impacted the impact?

Most cases I've seen, marijuana causes the driver to actually be more aware of their driving, becoming almost paranoid, focused intently on the road because they know they are high and that they could be in an accident.

Ah, are you perhaps a famous scientist? I think I just read an article that quotes you.

"No, I'm good to drive. I know I'm drunk, so I'll be *hic* compensating. I'll just consciously weave in the other direction."

Also, if the person was getting high at the time, a hand (or even two) might be busy with a pipe, bong or blunt, resulting in almost no control. I am witness to numerous acts such as this where the driver is busy lighting a pipe, steering with a knee. That's an accident waiting to happen, I'll admit.

The cause of the accident was the person trying to light a marijuna pipe while they were driving. But the crash wasn't caused by the fact that they were stoned, nor is the compulsion to keep smoking more pot strong enough to qualify as an addiction?

And on a semi-related note: your assertion that people should be allowed to drink and drive can actually be used to make your defense of secondhand smoke seem less sturdy. :P If somebody wanted to hit below the belt, they could compare the two stances.
Dec 3 2004, 3:37 am
In response to Xooxer
I'm sure that probably is a big reason in the states. Not so much in Canada though. We've decriminalized small amounts of it already.

I'm sure if they were going to legalize it, it would be pretty hush hush to the public until manufacturers are ready to start filling the market quickly to make sure you don't have drug dealers selling their 'goods' that could be possibly dangerous to peoples health.
Dec 3 2004, 3:40 am
In response to Kaga-Kami
I really wouldn't know but isn't it a bunch of chemicals? THC is the one that gets you high but there are a plethora of others that take the edge off the pain. Or so I was led to believe.
Dec 3 2004, 7:20 am
In response to Hedgemistress
Dec 3 2004, 12:17 pm
In response to JordanUl
Some examples of chemical drugs are: LSD, Cocaine and meth,. Seeing as how they're made completely with chemicals, no wonder people smoke marijuana over anything else. The other drugs are death drugs anyway.

If this link is proper, then here you will learn all about it. It has a lot of research about the substance, and even more research on the effects, health, and more! Check it out.

A Medical Marijuana Introduction
-
http://www.marijuana.com/index.php?page=intromed

"Ultimately, I do not believe the full potential of cannabinoids as medicines can be realized through the use of prescription analogs as long as the crushing, costly prohibition on natural marihuana is maintained. Will prescription analogs be approved for all of the present and future medical uses of whole cannabis? If not, will off-label prescriptions of the analogs be allowed? And if prescription drugs are available, will they always be sought? For example, minor stomach upset is almost always quickly relieved with a few puffs of cannabis. Will people suffering from this symptom go to the trouble and expense of seeking a prescription? When it is generally appreciated that marihuana usually relieves not only gastric distress, but many other common symptoms such as headache, insomnia, tension, pain and dysphoria, it may come to be regarded much as aspirin is today.

In fact, the range of beneficial uses of marihuana is so broad that it may ultimately be wrong to single out the strictly medical uses for approval. Many people use it not only to ease everyday discomforts, but also to heighten creativity or help them in their work. It can serve as an intellectual stimulant, promote emotional intimacy, or enhance the appreciation of food, sex, natural beauty, music, and art. Cannabis use simply cannot be made to conform to the boundaries established by present medical institutions. In this case the demand for legal enforcement of a distinction between medical and nonmedical use may be incompatible with the realities of human need. I know that to say this is to invite the charge that medical marihuana advocates are only using medicine as a stalking horse for the legalization of nonmedical use. This false accusation is actually a mirror image of the view taken by enemies of marihuana. They are unwilling to admit that it can be a safe and effective medicine largely because they are committed to exaggerating its dangers when used for other purposes. Nevertheless, it would be hypocritical to deny that there is a connection. For 28 years I have been urging the legalization of marihuana for general use. At one time I thought medical use could be treated as a distinct issue, because even people who might never see the urgency of legalizing nonmedical use would respond to medical need. Now I have changed my mind. On the contrary, I believe that making marihuana fully available as a medicine is one of the reasons for general legalization.

Ideally, cannabis should be available under more or less the same rules now applied to alcohol. At present, I fear, the political and legal system is too ossified to accommodate that change. But I believe enforcement of the laws against marihuana will be increasingly neglected because of the same kind of public pressure that has led to the enactment of the medical marihuana initiatives in five states. If I am correct, anti-marihuana statutes will come to resemble the laws against oral sex which still exist in several states but are ignored so totally that most people do not even know they exist. As the number of people arrested for possession declines, cannabis in its natural form, along with isolated cannabinoids and analogs, will be used more freely as a medicine. As a result, the public will be in a better position to learn about its virtues, and our understanding of those virtues will in turn make the laws more difficult to enforce. I hope and expect that this process will bring the era of prohibition to a de facto end. Only then will it be possible to realize the full potential of this remarkable substance, and its medical potential in particular. "

Copyright ©2000 - 2004, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Dec 3 2004, 12:23 pm
In response to Hedgemistress
I only agree with one point, the fact that drinking and driving shouldn't in any way be allowed. Drinkers never control how much they drink. Even after they're drunk, they'll grab another and start spilling it all over the place and never even take a drink! Drinking is worse then smoking, doing them both means they don't have anymore will. I don't understand how someone could drink pure poison, and say they like the liver burning taste.

Also, for those that might think they have something against me; No, i don't like smoking pot, and i never have, but i do it for a personal reason that you wouldn't understand unless you knew me personally.
Dec 3 2004, 12:32 pm
In response to Xooxer
People that toke up just want to sit back and relax, even if you don't toke you don't have to insult them, or profile them as bad people. I know i'm certainly not a bad person, i help people everyday, whether it's doing something they don't know how to do, or teaching them about something. Just because i toke doesn't mean i should be classified to the whole world as a horrible person. Many of the pot smokers are pretty intelligent, and have some damn good conversations.

But, in light of that, there are the bad tokers. The people that will steal your weed, pipes, money, whatever. They don't care. Usually, these are the fiends, the people that are willing to do anything to be high off of something. You can find these people at any highschool. They may act nice, but give them the chance to take something they want and they will. But still, it isn't right to profile someone just because of what they choose to do or what they look like. I have a few "gangbanger" friends at school, and they aren't even like most of the others and they smoke too!

So, atleast be sure to have general evidence, or proof, that they need to be disregarded. :D
Dec 3 2004, 12:59 pm
In response to Xooxer
Okay, I'm seeing the same basic problem with a lot of those articles. They're telling us what percent of total drivers in accidents were high on marijuana... but without knowing how many total drivers were high to begin with (in other words, without knowing what percentage of driving marijuana smokers had or caused accidents)... this statistic tells us nothing.

Yes, it's much lower than the percentage of drunk drivers causing accidents. However, alcohol is a more common drug than marijuana. If we know that more people drink than smoke, and we know that more drinkers cause accidents, we don't know the significance of that unless we have even a rough idea of the actual proportion of driving drinkers to driving smokers (or even drinkers to smokers overall.)

And no, I'm not ready to accept "everybody" or "more than you would think" as a statistic for who smokes marijuana.

Also, have you seen any sources for these studies that aren't being posted on (and likely paraphrased or interpreted by) pro-pot websites (yes, I include the university news site... especially since it doesn't directly quote the study, only sums up its findings... and it wasn't even a study, it was only research into other studies... presumably the ones on the rest of the website)? I'd be interested to know if the studies' authors are actually leaping to such a distant conclusion when they don't have the data to support it, or if this is exclusively a spin being created by the drug culture.

The one that's talking about marijuana's motor effects seems strangely contradictory. It says that being lightly stoned has an antagonist effect on being intoxicated (i.e., they cancel each other out), but then goes on to say in its very next point that there's no physical change on how the alcohol is absorbed or processed... nothing that really accounts for it. I'll go into this more a little further down.

It also says, "The results with marijuana on the other hand suggested a slower and more careful approach to the problem, though as with alcohol, an increased error rate in responses was recorded. "

So.... they're slower and more careful... but they still make more mistakes. Gee. Could it be that they're not actually more careful... they're just slower?

It's also worth noting that that in that study, dosage was determined subjectively... by how high the participants, who were "non-naive in the use of marijuana," said they felt, and that these experienced pot smokers were recruited by advertising on a rock music station. Tell me... you're a pothead... you hear about a study out to compare marijuana and alcohol... you get to participate, and you've got a chance to totally fudge the results by overestimating how far gone you are, overacting being drunk, try to tone it down when you're using both, etc. If your goal is to get pot destigmatized and the study is totally subjective, why wouldn't you?

Marijuana makes you stupid. Argue with that if you want... then go in for a job interview stoned. Go back and take your more important high school tests stoned. Try to code a quality program stoned. Have a doctor perform life-saving surgery on you stoned. Hey, if it makes him more careful, why not do it? We should require them all to light up. Maybe that guy in Florida would still have his foot... if only his doctor had toked! Maybe we should lower malpractice insurance costs for doctors who are known potheads?

Pot makes you giggly and makes you pay an inordinate amount of attention to some things (fixate) and not pay enough attention to others. This is why people on marijuana are so funny to be around... and this is why people on marijuana should not be driving a car, or performing surgery.

I have a right (as a pedestrian and ocassional passenger and potential driver) to not be struck by some arrogant and frankly stupid stoner who thinks that pot makes him a better driver. Neither you, nor anybody else, has the right to pilot a ton of rolling metal (or half ton of rolling plastic) while under the effects of a drug that affects your mood and nervous system in any but the most minor way. And if pot was so damn minor in effect, then there wouldn't be so many addicts.

Yes, I said addicts. Potheads are addicted to pot. This is why they're called potheads and not pot users. This is why they go through so much trouble to try to legalize something that they insist does next to nothing to them. Pot produces a change in how you think and feel and people get hooked on that. It's no less or more weakness than a physical addiction because a mental change is no less real than a physical one.

If I'm wrong and they're not addicted, and if marijuana has such a tiny little effect in the first place (All these pothead studies seem to be saying the same thing: MARIJUANA DOES ALMOST NOTHING BUT WE SMOKE IT ANYWAY JUST FOR YOU KNOW THE HECK OF IT SO UM PLEASE LEGALIZE IT KTHX... STUDIES SHOW)... then it's not too much to ask that they put the crap down a reasonable amount of time before they climb into a car, is it?

And for the record... I'm in favor of legalization. I drink alcohol, and marijuana, if no better, is not worse. Potheads just need to stop being so stupid about it... insisting everybody does it, or should do it, insisting marijuana is a solution to problems (yeah, and they're not addicts), claiming it makes them better at critical tasks that involve hand-eye coordination and a healthy risk of death and dismemberment... I have never wrote a post on BYOND that I had to consciously check myself from swearing as on this one.
Dec 3 2004, 1:04 pm
In response to Kaga-Kami
Kaga-Kami wrote:
Some examples of chemical drugs are: LSD, Cocaine and meth,.

And marijuana.

Guess what, slappy? EVERYTHING IS CHEMICALS. Your shirt is chemicals. You are chemicals. A blade of grass is made up of 100% chemicals. All natural chemicals... but so are the chemicals that make up LSD.

And for the record... cocaine is a LEAF. It is, as marijuana users like to say, an "herb." That doesn't make it any less dangerous, does it?

There is nothing "magic" about nature that results in arrangement of chemicals that are purely beneficial to us. The most toxic substances on earth are natural. Man-made poisons are nothing more than an attempt to recreate these in doses we can control.

A poison mushroom is "natural". Processed cheese is "artificial." Guess which will kill you first?

You want to say marijuana is not as bad as meth or cocaine (especially crack)... go right ahead. But it's got nothing to do with which one was made "by nature" and which one was made "by man". WE ARE PART OF NATURE. My computer is no less natural than a rock. It violates no laws of physics and its formation is the result of a purely physical series of chain reactions that stretches back to the big bang... same as the rock.
Dec 3 2004, 1:23 pm
In response to Hedgemistress
Pot makes you giggly and makes you pay an inordinate amount of attention to some things (fixate) and not pay enough attention to others. This is why people on marijuana are so funny to be around... and this is why people on marijuana should not be driving a car, or performing surgery.

Just slipping in a word edgewise, but as clear support to this, every defensive driving document I've ever seen indicates that a fixed stare is the primary cause of accidents: people pay attention to one thing and forget to keep looking all around their car and not getting the "big picture" (defensive driving courses all seem to share that concept... I think it's a stupid name for the concept, but meh).

I know that the one or two times I've nearly hit someone else, that's what happened: the first time I was watching the car beside me because they were starting to drift into my lane (and I hadn't seen the car in front slow down); the second time I was driving through a hospital zone (at the speed limit, unlike most everyone else) and I glanced over to the left to look at the ice cream parlour I liked (also remembering the girl behind the counter =P), while the van in front had stopped at a crosswalk.


Both times I circumvented the collisions because I have good reflexes and I didn't keep staring where I wasn't supposed to be. The fact that I neither accelerate hard nor speed also contributed. I know for a fact that if I had been high, I'd have huge insurance premiums now, and might've given some people some lasting injuries. I wouldn't ever be able to drive again, knowing I had done something like that.
Dec 3 2004, 3:25 pm
In response to Hedgemistress
Hedgemistress wrote:
I'd be interested to know if the studies' authors are actually leaping to such a distant conclusion when they don't have the data to support it, or if this is exclusively a spin being created by the drug culture.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/ StateofKnwlegeDrugs/StateofKnwlegeDrugs/

Pot makes you giggly and makes you pay an inordinate amount of attention to some things (fixate) and not pay enough attention to others. This is why people on marijuana are so funny to be around... and this is why people on marijuana should not be driving a car, or performing surgery.

It's odd, then that the makers of Marinol take driving while under the influence so lightly:

Effects on Driving: The drug manufacturer suggests that patients receiving treatment with Marinol® should be specifically warned not to drive until it is established that they are able to tolerate the drug and perform such tasks safely.

So, they're ok to drive once they get used to being stoned? So, driving stoned isn't so bad, so long as you're tolerant enough to drive safely? So, it is possible to drive safely while under the influence.

And if pot was so damn minor in effect, then there wouldn't be so many addicts.

There's no real evidence to show people involved in accidents who tested positive for THC were actually under the infulence of the drug at the time of the accident. This stuff can stay in your blood stream for up to a month with no impairing effects, and if they did hair sample analysis, it can be detectable for years after the time of actual intoxication. Just because they found THC, doesn't mean they were high. There is, infact, almost no way of detecting if someone is under the influence of THC, unless you know them personally and can spot the change in behavior.

Yes, I said addicts. Potheads are addicted to pot. This is why they're called potheads and not pot users.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that marijuana is addictive?

This is why they go through so much trouble to try to legalize something that they insist does next to nothing to them.

Please, no user I know claims it has no effect on them. If it did, they wouldn't use it. Of course pot does something to you, but so does alchohol, or aspirin. Pushing for legalization isn't about addiction. It's about legalizing a relatively harmless substance that has not been proven to be any more detremental to health than cigarettes or alchohol. It's about allowing farmers to grow hemp for textile manufacturing, it's about allowing doctors to pescribe THC pills to patients who would benefit from them. Even if they never decriminalized the recreational aspects, there is no reason to not allow marijuana to be used in other ways. Hell, you can buy poppy seeds and grow your own opium, but you can't grow hemp to make jeans?

Pot produces a change in how you think and feel and people get hooked on that. It's no less or more weakness than a physical addiction because a mental change is no less real than a physical one.

There's a difference between wanting to smoke a joint because you want to, and wanting to shoot heroin because you need to. Heroin is addictive, cigarettes are addictive, cocain is addictive, marijuana is not.

If I'm wrong and they're not addicted, and if marijuana has such a tiny little effect in the first place (All these pothead studies seem to be saying the same thing: MARIJUANA DOES ALMOST NOTHING BUT WE SMOKE IT ANYWAY JUST FOR YOU KNOW THE HECK OF IT SO UM PLEASE LEGALIZE IT KTHX... STUDIES SHOW)... then it's not too much to ask that they put the crap down a reasonable amount of time before they climb into a car, is it?

No, it's not an unreasonable request. What, you think people wake up every morning and hit the bong before their feet hit the floor? Ok, some people do, but they do it by choice, not because of a physical addiction. A pot user can go without pot, they won't feel a need for it, they won't have the shakes. They may be upset that they don't have any, but I get upset if I don't have coffee. It doesn't mean I'm addicted to coffee, and I can function just fine without it. It's just a nice thing to wake up to in the morning.

No, I'm not advocating or defending drivers under the influence. It's stupid to drive while drunk or stoned. There is no argument for it. I'm only trying to indicate that marijuana use does not adversly affect driving ability to the degree that some people claim. I've never drivin while stoned, so I can't speak from experience. I'm a lousy driver anyways, so I'd probably do poorly. Most of the drivers who use marijuana that I have known are not noticably impaired.

I've countless friends in numerous states who've driven while high with me in the vehicle, and I never even thought that they were incapable of driving. They weren't "fixated", they weren't drowsy, they weren't all giggly (well, any moreso than when sober), and they didn't "space out" when it came to following simple traffic laws, like obeying stoplights and signs. They were as capable as any sober driver I've known, and I see no evidence that suggests otherwise.

Does this make it right? Of course not. My experiences aren't the law of the universe. It is possible to get into an accident while stoned. But being stoned does not mean you're going to be in an accident.

~X
Dec 3 2004, 3:36 pm
In response to Hedgemistress
Hedgemistress wrote:
And for the record... cocaine is a LEAF. It is, as marijuana users like to say, an "herb." That doesn't make it any less dangerous, does it?

Um, not quite. Cocain is derived from the coca leaf, but you'd have to injest a whole crapload of leaf to get anything like the effects of powdered cocain. The leaf itself is relatively harmless. It's only after the cocain is extracted and concentrated through chemical processes is it ready for use as a drug.

You want to say marijuana is not as bad as meth or cocaine (especially crack)... go right ahead. But it's got nothing to do with which one was made "by nature" and which one was made "by man".

In it's natural form, the leaf, cocain is harmless. It's only after man concetrates the substance does it become a drug. Marijuana is a drug in it's natural leaf form. That's what he means.

~X
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6