Cannabis: An apology..Published: 18 March 2007

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Amused

Disclaimers: No, I do not smoke pot. No, I do not think it's OK to smoke pot recreationally. Yes, I do oppose the war on drugs. No I do not think pot should be illegal.

I don't smoke pot much. I do think it's OK to do it recreationally, since it's your own body. Much in the same way that it's OK to drink recreationally (which some people are also against)

I don't do it because it makes me feel numb and stupid. I like feeling sharp.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Amused

Disclaimers: No, I do not smoke pot. No, I do not think it's OK to smoke pot recreationally. Yes, I do oppose the war on drugs. No I do not think pot should be illegal.

I don't smoke pot much. I do think it's OK to do it recreationally, since it's your own body. Much in the same way that it's OK to drink recreationally (which some people are also against)

I don't do it because it makes me feel numb and stupid. I like feeling sharp.

Note how my opinion on if its OK or not does not get in the way of my opinion on legality.

I don't think it's a good thing to use it recreationally, yet I am opposed the its illegality

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Amused

Disclaimers: No, I do not smoke pot. No, I do not think it's OK to smoke pot recreationally. Yes, I do oppose the war on drugs. No I do not think pot should be illegal.

I don't smoke pot much. I do think it's OK to do it recreationally, since it's your own body. Much in the same way that it's OK to drink recreationally (which some people are also against)

I don't do it because it makes me feel numb and stupid. I like feeling sharp.

Note how my opinion on if its OK or not does not get in the way of my opinion on legality.

I don't think it's a good thing to use it recreationally, yet I am opposed the its illegality

why

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Number1
quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The skunk smoked by the majority of young Britons bears no relation to traditional cannabis resin - with a 25-fold increase in the amount of the main psychoactive ingredient, tetrahydrocannabidinol (THC), typically found in the early 1990s. New research being published in this week's Lancet will show how cannabis is more dangerous than LSD and ecstasy. Experts analysed 20 substances for addictiveness, social harm and physical damage. The results will increase the pressure on the Government to have a full debate on drugs, and a new independent UK drug policy commission being launched next month will call for a rethink on the issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sampson,

I would like to point out that the Lancet is and I quote, from Wiki "The Lancet is considered to be one of the "core" general medical journals, the others being the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the British Medical Journal." see Wiki Article.

Ill take the the Lancet info over your generalisation any time.

I wasn't generalizing, the only generalization made was your bolded statement. I really don't care what info you believe. There is plenty of information out there that supports the notion that drugs are linked to Schizophrenia, not just marijuana. If you take a minute and look at the topic at hand you will see that The Lancet isn't producing any new information.

Just about every piece I have looked over on this topic covers groups of people under the age of 26 and targets thoes with a specific gene involved in breaking down dopamine (which the topic article in this thread so conveniently leaves out). The topic article in this thread is a piece of sensationalizing crap. In fact the article is an apology from the newspaper "The independent" (from which this article comes from) apologizing and reversing it's "campaign for cannabis use to be decriminalised". The article has less to do with the actual topic of marijuana use linked with mental illness, and more to do with the newspaper saving face. Had anyone at The Independent actually done some research, instead of smoking dope all day, they would find out that the information causing them to flipflop on their stance has been available a minimum of a DECADE prior to them starting their cute little legalize marijuana campaign. This isn't about science, it's about politics. Had this really been about science then they would be singing a different tune.

Since it's about politics the newspaper IMMEDIATELY trashed it's campaign that has garnered so much attention and support from the public once the NHS (national health service of UK) reported (aka indirect pressure) a spike in youth admission to mental health care facilities. If you can't see the clear cut political connection here than you probably have a mental health issue yourself.


From your same wiki entry.

In January 2006, it was revealed that data had been fabricated in an article by the cancer researcher Jon Sudbø and 13 co-authors published in The Lancet in October 2005 [3]. The fabricated article was entitled "Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the risk of oral cancer: a nested case-control study". [4]. Within a week after this scandal surfaced in the news, the high-impact New England Journal of Medicine published an expression of editorial concern regarding another research paper published on a similar topic in the journal.

Gee, scientists fabricating data in order to produce results, that's a new one. :roll:

Since you're posting wiki entries I'll contribute my share.
Here is the entry for the NEJM. The New England Journal of Medicine called out the Lancet and the false data published within. NWJM is held in higher regard than The Lancet, and is more credible on any given day of the week. Though were really just splitting hairs here talking about the differences in medical journals that neither of us read on a regular basis, and now I'll tell you why.

The reality is that for someone who has a family member that has fallen directly into the group of persons these studies are focusing on, you know very little. Take a little time and read Marijuana and Madness by David Castle. If you can't get your hands on it, or can't afford it, then I would gladly pull it from my bookshelf and let you borrow it.

Since you're probably not going to look further into the topic and lack a basic understanding of it, I'll quickly sum it up for you.
The studies are focused on people with a "bad" copy of the COMT (catechol-O-methyl transferase) gene and people in their adolescence. Thoes who have at least one copy of the "bad" gene are exponentially more susceptible to mental illness without cannabis use and even more susceptible with cannabis use. On the flip side, thoes without the "bad" gene (meaning little genetic predisposition to mental illness, namely schizophreia), were nominally affected by cannabis use. Now adolescents are vulnerable to mental illness from using marijuana due to their brains not being fully developed. Adolescents with a copy of the "bad" gene were far above and beyond the norm of any group of people studied.

Now if you take a perfectly healthy adult with no "bad" gene and no history of cannabis use in their youth, their rate of schizophrenia drops off dramatically. So the real focus is on young people who use cannabis and people with the "bad" COMT gene who use cannabis and thoes who don't. So the generlization that cannabis directly causes schizophrenia in all people is false. I figure that you of all people would have an inkling of a clue about this topic because your newphew developed schizophrenia "after smoking pot for a few years". Besides that, I think your story is a bunch of BS. How is that for a "generalisation"?

Now lets take a second and think critically, ok? You might think this is a "generalisation" too, but I suppose you're far from credible, right?
How is it that the entire dutch population isn't schizo? Or mabey thoes coffee shops don't really exist?

Now for a little tidbit of info for your sorely lacking grey matter... there is a link between fetal nutritional deficiency and schizophrenia. Schizophrenia occurs worldwide at a 1% rate, not very high. Increasingly, it is viewed as a neurodevelopmental disorder with environmental influences during early brain development, including fetal nutritional deficiency, modifying risk. So is it nature or nurture? Probably a bit of both.

Don't let the war on drugs fool you, it's a money making machine.

I don't know why you think you need to resort to insults troughout your write up. And why would I lie about my nefew developing a mental ilness after several years of pot smoking?

But thanks for the information you provided.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Amused

Note how my opinion on if its OK or not does not get in the way of my opinion on legality.

I don't think it's a good thing to use it recreationally, yet I am opposed the its illegality

I think it's good that you can stay objective about an issue. Unfortunately, the average American is stupid and only thinks on an emotional level. If they have no use for something, they see no reason to keep it legal. Or to state it more accurately, if they don't use a specific right (free speech, firearms, freedom of religion), those rights can be done away with for all they care.

 

[thujone]

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: piasabird
People that Drink Alcohol, Smoke Cigarettes, Habitually drink Coffee, and take drugs to escape reality, almost always have some kind of underlying mental problems. Sorry if I described you or anyone you know. The need to escape reality is an indication of other problems that a person is not able to deal with.

Besides all that THC has a way of accumulating in the body. The more you smoke, the more you accumulate. If you habitually smoke pot, say one joint per day or 2 or 3 every week, then there is not enough time for your body to get rid of it. This could result in brain damage.

How do I know this?

This is why a random drug test can find casual Pot Users. If they smoke all the time it is still in their bodies. You can smoke pot but you can not hide.

..true. overweight dopers will test positive for many months mabe a year after doping.

this is not true. not even close. you can smoke pot and be tested a week or so later (sometimes even less) and show no signs of use. and this isn't even with any of the "cleaner" type products. so long as you drink water your body will flush it out.

i'll also point out something else that builds up in the body... brominated vegetable oil. ingredient in mt. dew and other citrus sodas. unfortunately not much is known as far as possible side effects of this.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Amused

Disclaimers: No, I do not smoke pot. No, I do not think it's OK to smoke pot recreationally. Yes, I do oppose the war on drugs. No I do not think pot should be illegal.

I don't smoke pot much. I do think it's OK to do it recreationally, since it's your own body. Much in the same way that it's OK to drink recreationally (which some people are also against)

I don't do it because it makes me feel numb and stupid. I like feeling sharp.

Note how my opinion on if its OK or not does not get in the way of my opinion on legality.

I don't think it's a good thing to use it recreationally, yet I am opposed the its illegality

why

Personal experience and observation of people who regularly use.

But then, that's my opinion. The difference me and so many others is I do not try to push that opinion on others through law.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Amused

Note how my opinion on if its OK or not does not get in the way of my opinion on legality.

I don't think it's a good thing to use it recreationally, yet I am opposed the its illegality

I think it's good that you can stay objective about an issue. Unfortunately, the average American is stupid and only thinks on an emotional level. If they have no use for something, they see no reason to keep it legal. Or to state it more accurately, if they don't use a specific right (free speech, firearms, freedom of religion), those rights can be done away with for all they care.

You're preachin to the choir there, brother.

I'm the ATOT king of telling people to not only care if it's their own bull being gored... but to fight the goring of anybody's bull.

 

[blackllotus]

It's like I don't care about nothin' man
Role another blunt, Yeah cuz
(Yeah x 2)

I was gonna clean my room, until I got high
I was gonna get up and find the broom, But then I got high
My room is still messed up And I know why, (why man) 'cuz I got high
Because I got high
Because I got high

I was gonna go to class, before I got high
I coulda' cheated and I coulda passed, but I got high
I'm taking it next semester and I know why, (why man) 'cuz I got high
Because I got high
Because I got high

I was gonna go to work, but then I got high
I just got a new promotion, but I got high
Now I'm selling dope and I know why, (why man) 'cuz I got high
Because I got high
Because I got high

I was gonna go to court, before I got high
I was gonna pay my child support, but then I got high (No you weren't)
They took my whole pay check, and I know why, (why man) 'cuz I got high,
Because I got high
Because I got high

I wasn't gonna run from the cops but I was high, (I'm serious man)
I was gonna pull right over and stop, but I was high
Now I'm a paraplegic, and I know why, (why man) 'cuz I got high
Because I got high
Because I got high

I was gonna pay my car a note, until I got high
I wasn't gonna gamble on the boat, but then I got high
Now the tow truck's pulling away, and I know why, (why man) 'cuz I got high, because I got high, because I got high
Because I got high
Because I got high

I was gonna make love to you, but then I got high, I'm serious
I was gonna eat your pussy to, but then I got high
Now i'm jacking off and I know why, (turn this ****** off) 'cuz I got high, because I got high, because I got high

I messed up my entire life, because I got high
I lost my kids and wife , because I got high
Now I'm sleeping on the sidewalk, and I know why, (why man) 'cuz I got high, because I got high, because I got high

 

[thujone]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Amused

Note how my opinion on if its OK or not does not get in the way of my opinion on legality.

I don't think it's a good thing to use it recreationally, yet I am opposed the its illegality

I think it's good that you can stay objective about an issue. Unfortunately, the average American is stupid and only thinks on an emotional level. If they have no use for something, they see no reason to keep it legal. Or to state it more accurately, if they don't use a specific right (free speech, firearms, freedom of religion), those rights can be done away with for all they care.

You're preachin to the choir there, borther.

I'm the ATOT king of telling people to not only care if it's their own bull being gored... but to fight the goring of anybody's bull.

i like the sentiment of this

 

[Greenman]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: stnicralisk

Originally posted by: SampSon
I'm not clear of your stance on this issue. Are you for or against cannabis?

I don't believe for a second there is a clear link between cannabis and schizophrenia.

The next link will be between speeding in a car and having AIDS. :roll:

My nephew has schizophrenia and he smoked pot every single day. Coincidence? Maybe. However considering that there has been research on this issue showing that young males who smoke pot are far more likely to develop schizophrenia I see no reason to bash the connection.

What credentials do you have that should make us think twice before believing doctors?

I don't need credentials. What credentials do the people who wrote the study have? Who is funding them? Who do they answer to? What is their motivation? What is their stance on the issue they are studying?
Since you put a "Dr." in front of someones name they instantly become credible, right?
If a doctor tells you that god exists, do you blindly believe him? Your doctor tells you that eating 1lb of lard a day is good for your heart, do you believe him?

Most likely your nephew has mental issues/disease far beyond what you know. Why did he start smoking pot? How did he act when he was smoking? Was he still a productive member of society while smoking? What is your family medical history? What medical problems did he have as a child? What was his diet like? What area of the country (world) did he live in? How was his social interaction with peers? How, what, why when.. etc.

Do you see where I'm going with this? The complexity of mental diseases are so far beyond what we as humans understand, but we can so easily and readily tag a mental illness on an illicit substance? In less than 10 years we can figure out that cannabis is directly linked with schizophrenia, but we still havn't figured out so many other medical issues we have been working on for decades. Right, that doesn't sound issue motivated to me at all.....

Instead of immediately believeing a small set of opinions given to you by a doctor or scientist, you should step back and think about it critically for a minute. Though most people are dim enough to automatically believe whatever they hear if it comes from the mouth of someone who has a couple of letters preceeding their name.

On a side note, your post is just too perfect. Family member, the substance, daily use and he has schizophrenia. Sounds believeable. 😀

This made me laugh. Should we all try and guess who's ox got gored here? Lol.
It's a nice little rant, and the odd thing is I've heard pretty much the exact same thing said when the topic was global warming.
The simple fact is smoking weed doesn't do you any good, there is no argument to be made for it other than "it's fun". It's strange that that is the one reason the pro pot crowed won't use to promote it, and it's the one reason a lot of people would accept for it's use.

 

[OsoVerde]

From my observations, it seems like screwed up people smoke weed/do drugs rather than people who smoke weed/do drugs become screwed up. In high school I was friends with all the stoner kids since they were some of the nicest people at the school. It was really sad how many horrific things had happened to some of them. One girl that smoked weed daily had been raped when she was a toddler. Another girl had severe depression and the skin on her arms was almost solid scar tissue from years of cutting herself, her parents were abusive or would ignore her, so she self-medicated by taking all kinds of stuff. By the time I last saw her, she looked terrible and was dating an abusive coke dealer... I really doubt she's still alive today. Another friend was probably bipolar, first got drunk by age 12, and had tried to commit suicide at least once by age 15. She was fairly stable for a while when I first knew her and then some bastard she had a crush on invited her over and raped her, she had a relapse with her mental illness and started doing drugs and going to parties where more scum abused her, which made her more depressed, more drugs, etc. Her Christian parents never seemed to get a clue that she needed help in the form of meds and counseling instead of confiscating her baggy jeans. Countless others had obvious depression that wasn't being treated, so they hit the weed to get relief.

I think the government should just legalize all drugs for people 18+ and put the money saved towards free walk-in drug rehab and mental healthcare clinics for anyone that wants help.

 

[thujone]

Originally posted by: OsoVerde
I think the government should just legalize all drugs for people 18+ and put the money saved towards free walk-in drug rehab and mental healthcare clinics for anyone that wants help.

quoted for fvcking truth

!!!

 

[cKGunslinger]

So what?

There have been infinite more studies that show things such as cigarettes, alcohol, Twinkies, Dunkin' Donuts, McDonald's french fries, etc are horrible for anyone to consume in large amounts and pose far greater health risks than anything this study hints pot may contribute to.

Should the government declare those things illegal and wage a faux "war" on them as well?

 

[SampSon]

This made me laugh. Should we all try and guess who's ox got gored here? Lol.
It's a nice little rant, and the odd thing is I've heard pretty much the exact same thing said when the topic was global warming.
The simple fact is smoking weed doesn't do you any good, there is no argument to be made for it other than "it's fun". It's strange that that is the one reason the pro pot crowed won't use to promote it, and it's the one reason a lot of people would accept for it's use.

Whos oxen got gored? Mabey you didn't take the time to read through the entire thread before you decided that I'm just a dope smoking fool who knows nothing about the topic.
I really don't need to reiterate what I've already typed up in great length and detail. If you care to take the time and look it over you might learn something.
As for global warming, it's the same exact case as the war on drugs. Except global warming is the new war on -insert here-. At least with the marijuana studies they have some solid conclusive results that implicate the substance with potential mental illness. Global warming studies are barely in their infancy, yet everyone wants to accept them as fact written in stone.

As for what the "pot crowd" utilizes as its argument, what it boils down to is that they are fighting the governments, not the people, on the topic of marijuana useage. The public already knows it's primary fun usage and knows it's potential harmful effects, the vast majority of polls support this. There is no need to campaign marijuana to the public, only the governmental powers that be. The government apparently needs to see that marijuana has more positives than just "it feels good" in order to relax the restrictions, so the argument of "it's fun" generally doesn't matter to the government (except of course in matter covered in my next statement). Though it's painfully ironic that alcohol and tobacco (just to name two) which really have no other uses other than that "they're fun", are legal, regulated and endorsed by the powers that be. Any single argument you can make against marijuana, you can make the same exact argument against alcohol or tobacco.

I'd like to know where you obtain the information that weed has absolutely no positive effects what-so-ever. The primary push is for medical uses, generally for pain management and help increasing appetite for people on chemotherapy. I have a personal friend who had(has) some rare form of brain cancer that was operated on, but will ultimately kill her very young. Her doctors directly told her to smoke marijuana to help her through chemo and manage pain when the heavy painkillers don't work.

Now for a quick little briefing on the laws in this country (USA):
12 States (minimum currently) have decriminalized it.
12 States approved it for medical usage.
and here is the best one.
20 States require tax stamps to be purchased from the government if you possess marijuana. Yea, tax stamps, ironic.

Either way I'm not very concerned and the laws arn't going to change my life, though I don't agree marijuana should be illegal.