Marijuana Poisoning Children in Record Numbers, Study Shows.

[bshole]

Really, because when I was younger it wasn't out of the norm to smoke an ounce a day.

Man you are so high. There is no way that is true. I smoked the stuff pretty heavily in college and could possibly go through a quarter in a week... maybe if I worked at it. There is no way you smoked an ounce in one day. That did not happen. It is a laughable lie.

 

[dali71]

Man you are so high. There is no way that is true. I smoked the stuff pretty heavily in college and could possibly go through a quarter in a week... maybe if I worked at it. There is no way you smoked an ounce in one day. That did not happen. It is a laughable lie.

Agreed, I call shens as well.

 

[xj0hnx]

Really, because when I was younger it wasn't out of the norm to smoke an ounce a day.

lulz, maybe an ounce a week, a day? No, especially with the shit that's around nowadays that two hits puts you out.

 

[piasabird]

These are probably the same kids who get sick from drinking their parent's alcoholic beverages.

Cant fix stupid!

 

[Spungo]

The only time I see stoners get fired up is when they start raving about weed, and the giant conspiracy to keep this harmless plant out of peoples hands. You guy's are funny.

Have you considered that maybe it IS a giant conspiracy?
Thousands of people are in jail for nonviolent drug offenses.
Privatized prisons make billions of dollars.
Those dollars go back to politicians to keep marijuana illegal.

Weed probably does have some kind of withdrawal. It's hard to tell because I've never seen someone stop taking it. The stoners I knew 5 years ago are still stoners today. It's not like cocaine where people cycle on and off constantly. That would be like suggesting my diet of carbohydrates has a certain withdrawal. Maybe I would have carb withdrawal if I suddenly stopped eating food, but you'll never be able to test this.

 

[Greenman]

Have you considered that maybe it IS a giant conspiracy?
Thousands of people are in jail for nonviolent drug offenses.
Privatized prisons make billions of dollars.
Those dollars go back to politicians to keep marijuana illegal.

Weed probably does have some kind of withdrawal. It's hard to tell because I've never seen someone stop taking it. The stoners I knew 5 years ago are still stoners today. It's not like cocaine where people cycle on and off constantly. That would be like suggesting my diet of carbohydrates has a certain withdrawal. Maybe I would have carb withdrawal if I suddenly stopped eating food, but you'll never be able to test this.

Honestly, I don't care if it is a conspiracy. It just doesn't matter to me at all. My only concern with stoners is that the crap stays in their system for a very long time, and if there is an accident on the job and someone tests positive for THC, it's a cluster fuck. So stoners get canned. Smoke a joint, lose your job. An easy rule to understand, and an easy rule to follow. What's astonishing is how many people will give up their job instead of weed.

 

[Jhhnn]

Honestly, I don't care if it is a conspiracy. It just doesn't matter to me at all. My only concern with stoners is that the crap stays in their system for a very long time, and if there is an accident on the job and someone tests positive for THC, it's a cluster fuck. So stoners get canned. Smoke a joint, lose your job. An easy rule to understand, and an easy rule to follow. What's astonishing is how many people will give up their job instead of weed.

What stays in your system isn't psychoactive, at all, and that's what employers test for. It's corporate vigilantism.

If I toked up and pissed into the bottle after 5 minutes, I'd be stoned yet test negative. The next day, I'd test positive, even though I wouldn't be stoned at all.

The whole process grants an extension of corporate power into people's lives where it doesn't belong, which is backed up by misconceptions and deliberate disinformation as to the very nature of drug testing for cannabis.

Don't get me wrong- people need to be straight during working hours, and it's reasonable that employers demand it. Off the job is another story entirely.

When the WoD showed signs of failure, the govt just called in additional corporate & govt employer enforcers, who'll gladly take whatever power they get, and use it.

 

[Bateluer]

OH SH*T! after thousands of years without harmful effects, it now seems that since we legalized it there are unintended consequences!

Marijuana has always had harmful effects, which have become more pronounced as we've selectively bred it to be stronger and more potent. The weed you get today isn't the same as what was around in the 1960s, and its on a whole different level compared to what was around in 1300.

 

[Greenman]

What stays in your system isn't psychoactive, at all, and that's what employers test for. It's corporate vigilantism.

If I toked up and pissed into the bottle after 5 minutes, I'd be stoned yet test negative. The next day, I'd test positive, even though I wouldn't be stoned at all.

The whole process grants an extension of corporate power into people's lives where it doesn't belong, which is backed up by misconceptions and deliberate disinformation as to the very nature of drug testing for cannabis.

Don't get me wrong- people need to be straight during working hours, and it's reasonable that employers demand it. Off the job is another story entirely.

When the WoD showed signs of failure, the govt just called in additional corporate & govt employer enforcers, who'll gladly take whatever power they get, and use it.

And it looks like it's working.
What can I tell you? If you work at job where you can kill someone by not being 100%, you better not ever get high.

 

[Jhhnn]

Marijuana has always had harmful effects, which have become more pronounced as we've selectively bred it to be stronger and more potent. The weed you get today isn't the same as what was around in the 1960s, and its on a whole different level compared to what was around in 1300.

Obviously, you have references for such assertions?

What are those harmful effects, exactly?

Contrary to your ill-informed assertions, hashish, a purified form of cannabis resin, has been known from the literature for ~1000 years. The most potent cannabis of today is no more potent than the best of the 60's, but the average potency of American street pot has increased. The potency of hashish from various producing regions hasn't increased at all while remaining available all across Europe & other parts of the world.

http://www.420magazine.com/forums/cannabis-facts-information/80968-history-hashish.html

Try to integrate facts into the formulation of your opinions, OK? Well, unless you regard Google as part of the Libruhl Meedeeyuh conspirasee...

 

[Jhhnn]

And it looks like it's working.
What can I tell you? If you work at job where you can kill someone by not being 100%, you better not ever get high.

Confronted with facts, you merely reassert falsehoods.

http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.html

Of course employers love drug testing, even when the results are meaningless wrt job performance. When things go wrong, it lets them shift the blame away from poor training, inadequate safety precautions & so forth onto somebody who wasn't necessarily even impaired at the time.

"He tested positive! It's his fault! Case closed!"

Thank God nobody really wants to know the truth, because that might mean corporate liability.

 

[xj0hnx]

The most potent cannabis of today is no more potent than the best of the 60's,

This is simply not true.

 

[Jhhnn]

This is simply not true.

Obviously, you weren't there. I was. We were smoking Thai sticks in 1969, along with vietnamese black, pakistani & afghani hash as well, in between mostly mexibrick. Then as now, you just had to have the right connections.

What's happened with cannabis breeding has been selection & hybridization of potent varieties both for proper flowering in long day length northern latitudes & shorter stature for indoor growing. Back in the 60's, very potent weed was always imported from the tropics, hashish from places where it has been produced for hundreds of years. There has also been a lot of european & american discovery of potent strains that existed for a millenia or more in places like Malawi, S Africa, S India & so forth. None of them are significantly more potent than Thai, Vietnamese, or the best Colombian of the 70's, just with a somewhat different effect.

 

[woolfe9998]

Really?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/10/25/the-conservative-case-for-legalizing-pot.html

http://www.therightsphere.com/2011/04/the-conservative-case-for-marijuana-legalization/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/marijuana-legalization-conservatives_n_1969556.html

http://www.dailypaul.com/139538/notable-conservatives-who-support-legalizing-marijuana

There are many that support legalization, but won't vote for it because of the soccer moms fear of it, and their votes, guess what, liberals do that too. Only an idiot calls it a left right issue.

I find it interesting that all your links have to do with this or that prominent conservative, or some particular conservative making a case. Did you check the polling on it or not?

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-nu...ijuana-but-agree-on-law-enforcement-policies/

22 points is quite a large margin. Try as I might, I can't find one poll which doesn't show a much higher percentage of dems than reps favoring legalization. You can trade anecdotes about this person or that all day, but it's meaningless. I don't agree with everything Jhhnn was saying here, but the issue is not viewed evenly between the left and the right.

That said, I think conservatives are coming around on the issue along with everyone else, just a little slower. I can see the country being 60-70% in favor of decriminalization in 10 more years, with even conservatives at or near 50%.

 

[woolfe9998]

Obviously, you weren't there. I was. We were smoking Thai sticks in 1969, along with vietnamese black, pakistani & afghani hash as well, in between mostly mexibrick. Then as now, you just had to have the right connections.

What's happened with cannabis breeding has been selection & hybridization of potent varieties both for proper flowering in long day length northern latitudes & shorter stature for indoor growing. Back in the 60's, very potent weed was always imported from the tropics, hashish from places where it has been produced for hundreds of years. There has also been a lot of european & american discovery of potent strains that existed for a millenia or more in places like Malawi, S Africa, S India & so forth. None of them are significantly more potent than Thai, Vietnamese, or the best Colombian of the 70's, just with a somewhat different effect.

My personal experience is consistent with this. Back in the 80's if I got weed it was hit or miss. These days it's almost always great, but it isn't better than the best stuff I got back then. It's about the same. That said, a lot of people seem to think it's more potent these days. I haven't seen anything scientific about it one way or the other.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Saying 'weed' is stronger now than in the 60's or anytime really is a useless talking point.

There are so many different strands of cannabis it's practically like saying 'fruit' is better now than before. Just way to generalized to mean anything. Or it's like saying 'alcohol' is stronger now than before..

Besides, if it were regulated, it wouldn't need to be as strong as possible AND different strands would be available for different needs. Just like alcohol has it's wide varieties, so would cannabis.

 

[xj0hnx]

Obviously, you weren't there. I was. We were smoking Thai sticks in 1969, along with vietnamese black, pakistani & afghani hash as well, in between mostly mexibrick. Then as now, you just had to have the right connections.

What's happened with cannabis breeding has been selection & hybridization of potent varieties both for proper flowering in long day length northern latitudes & shorter stature for indoor growing. Back in the 60's, very potent weed was always imported from the tropics, hashish from places where it has been produced for hundreds of years. There has also been a lot of european & american discovery of potent strains that existed for a millenia or more in places like Malawi, S Africa, S India & so forth. None of them are significantly more potent than Thai, Vietnamese, or the best Colombian of the 70's, just with a somewhat different effect.

Ahhh, so anecdotal evidence, gotcha.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php?resourceID=191

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10641915

Potency trends of delta9-THC and other cannabinoids in confiscated marijuana from 1980-1997.
ElSohly MA, Ross SA, Mehmedic Z, Arafat R, Yi B, Banahan BF 3rd.
Source

National Center for The Development of Natural Products, Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Departments of Pharmaceutics, University of Mississippi, University 38677, USA.


Abstract

The analysis of 35,312 cannabis preparations confiscated in the USA over a period of 18 years for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta9-THC) and other major cannabinoids is reported. Samples were identified as cannabis, hashish, or hash oil. Cannabis samples were further subdivided into marijuana (loose material, kilobricks and buds), sinsemilla, Thai sticks and ditchweed. The data showed that more than 82% of all confiscated samples were in the marijuana category for every year except 1980 (61%) and 1981 (75%). The potency (concentration of delta9-THC) of marijuana samples rose from less than 1.5% in 1980 to approximately 3.3% in 1983 and 1984, then fluctuated around 3% till 1992. Since 1992, the potency of confiscated marijuana samples has continuously risen, going from 3.1% in 1992 to 4.2% in 1997. The average concentration of delta9-THC in all cannabis samples showed a gradual rise from 3% in 1991 to 4.47% in 1997. Hashish and hash oil, on the other hand, showed no specific potency trends. Other major cannabinoids [cannabidiol (CBD), cannabinol (CBN), and cannabichromene (CBC)] showed no significant change in their concentration over the years.

I find it interesting that all your links have to do with this or that prominent conservative, or some particular conservative making a case. Did you check the polling on it or not?

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-nu...ijuana-but-agree-on-law-enforcement-policies/

22 points is quite a large margin. Try as I might, I can't find one poll which doesn't show a much higher percentage of dems than reps favoring legalization. You can trade anecdotes about this person or that all day, but it's meaningless. I don't agree with everything Jhhnn was saying here, but the issue is not viewed evenly between the left and the right.

That said, I think conservatives are coming around on the issue along with everyone else, just a little slower. I can see the country being 60-70% in favor of decriminalization in 10 more years, with even conservatives at or near 50%.

I never said that conservatives evenly sided with liberals on legalization, just that there are many conservatives that do support legalization, even some prominent conservatives, and that there are liberals that do not support legalization. It is not a black and white left/right issue, and trying to make it one is stupid, and unproductive.

 

[Greenman]

Confronted with facts, you merely reassert falsehoods.

http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.html

Of course employers love drug testing, even when the results are meaningless wrt job performance. When things go wrong, it lets them shift the blame away from poor training, inadequate safety precautions & so forth onto somebody who wasn't necessarily even impaired at the time.

"He tested positive! It's his fault! Case closed!"

Thank God nobody really wants to know the truth, because that might mean corporate liability.

What falsehood? It's all about what a jury will believe in the lawsuit following a serious accident. Employee A drove his tractor over employee B severing his right leg, employee A tested positive for THC. It's over at that point, and being the employer, I'll write a huge check. Fuck that. If you want to take a moral stand on the use of the harmless weed, risk your own money, risk your own job, risk your own reputation. Don't even try to call me out because I won't do it for you. For me, it's a liability, an unnecessary risk, and an illegal substance. You'd have to be brain dead to ignore that.

 

[yhelothar]

Weed has LOTS of negative side effects, particularly when taken daily. It does affect brain development, so it certainly could be considered dangerous for small children with growing brains.


And a lot of these stoners who insist it's safe haven't stopped smoking for a couple of days since they started toking.

Talk to the people who have gone through weed withdrawal and get their perspective.


Weed, like almost any drug, is safe in moderation. But these kids claiming weed is 100% safe to use in excess have no idea what they're talking about.

Well said. Way too many kids thinking pot is 100% safe from all the stoners circlejerking each other.

Weed withdrawal is actually very real, despite it being less prevalent than the usual suspects. Studies show that 44% of people get withdrawal symptoms after heavy use.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2777674/

Symptoms include anxiety, panic, insomnia, loss of appetite, restlessness. They're not merely "mental cravings," as one would imagine what the bothersome feeling of craving a juicy steak, or the ass of the hot broad across the room. But rather these are intense physical symptoms.

Here are pages upon pages of detailed self-reports of cannabis withdrawals.
http://www.steadyhealth.com/Marijuana_anxiety_withdrawal_t81102.html
http://www.steadyhealth.com/How_long_will_marijuana_withdrawal_symptoms_last__t235295.html

 

[Jhhnn]

Ahhh, so anecdotal evidence, gotcha.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php?resourceID=191

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10641915








I never said that conservatives evenly sided with liberals on legalization, just that there are many conservatives that do support legalization, even some prominent conservatives, and that there are liberals that do not support legalization. It is not a black and white left/right issue, and trying to make it one is stupid, and unproductive.

There's no gotcha there, sir. The studies confirm exactly what I offered- average potency has gone up, not the highest potency, at all. They also indicate that hash hasn't changed a bit, meaning the potency of materials used hasn't changed, either.

By the time 1980 rolled around, much of the better quality pot had disappeared, due to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, eradication efforts in Mexico, the end of the Vietnam war & hence difficult transport from SE asia & Colombia's shift from Marijuana to cocaine...

What you're really saying is that you weren't very well connected at the time...

 

[BudAshes]

Well said. Way too many kids thinking pot is 100% safe from all the stoners circlejerking each other.

Weed withdrawal is actually very real, despite it being less prevalent than the usual suspects. Studies show that 44% of people get withdrawal symptoms after heavy use.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2777674/

Symptoms include anxiety, panic, insomnia, loss of appetite, restlessness. They're not merely "mental cravings," as one would imagine what the bothersome feeling of craving a juicy steak, or the ass of the hot broad across the room. But rather these are intense physical symptoms.

Here are pages upon pages of detailed self-reports of cannabis withdrawals.
http://www.steadyhealth.com/Marijuana_anxiety_withdrawal_t81102.html
http://www.steadyhealth.com/How_long_will_marijuana_withdrawal_symptoms_last__t235295.html

I've been through withdrawal. It sucks but it goes away after a few days. The problem is the fact that heavy marijuana users are usually self medicating. Their use is covering mental issues that would probably have them on some heavy duty drugs if they went to the doctor. Instead they smoke pot, and as you enter your 20's many mental problems become more and more apparent, so they smoke more and more to try and compensate.

 

[xj0hnx]

There's no gotcha there, sir. The studies confirm exactly what I offered- average potency has gone up, not the highest potency, at all. They also indicate that hash hasn't changed a bit, meaning the potency of materials used hasn't changed, either.

By the time 1980 rolled around, much of the better quality pot had disappeared, due to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, eradication efforts in Mexico, the end of the Vietnam war & hence difficult transport from SE asia & Colombia's shift from Marijuana to cocaine...

What you're really saying is that you weren't very well connected at the time...

Anecdotal super secret connections, lol.

 

[xj0hnx]

Well said. Way too many kids thinking pot is 100% safe from all the stoners circlejerking each other.

Weed withdrawal is actually very real, despite it being less prevalent than the usual suspects. Studies show that 44% of people get withdrawal symptoms after heavy use.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2777674/

Symptoms include anxiety, panic, insomnia, loss of appetite, restlessness. They're not merely "mental cravings," as one would imagine what the bothersome feeling of craving a juicy steak, or the ass of the hot broad across the room. But rather these are intense physical symptoms.

Here are pages upon pages of detailed self-reports of cannabis withdrawals.
http://www.steadyhealth.com/Marijuana_anxiety_withdrawal_t81102.html
http://www.steadyhealth.com/How_long_will_marijuana_withdrawal_symptoms_last__t235295.html

Still laughing my ass off at "weed withdrawal". Sounds like someone that drink too much coffee. What a joke. Alcohol and opiates have withdrawals, saying weed has withdrawal is fucking insulting to anyone with a brain.

 

[Jhhnn]

Anecdotal super secret connections, lol.

Heh. When your own link doesn't say what you want it to say, go straight for denial. Standard Conservative headset.

 

[Genx87]

I escaped long ago. Take a look at yourself, and the mental cage you live in, the one they've convinced you is some sort of freedom.

You've got lots of company, quite by design.

So, uhh, who was it that's supported MJ legalization for decades? Conservatives? And why not, even when wrapped in their sheepskins of Libertopianism?

Because the last thing conservative leaders want is for people to open their minds. They want you to close your mind, wrapped tightly around the little turdlets of ideology they fed you. They don't want to have to hunt for your buttons- they want to push 'em right where they found 'em last time, and all the times before that. Feel good? Of course. It's supposed to, to get you to feel all smug & self righteous. You're all dialed in as a receptor & a repeater, not as a thinker or evaluator. Not that you have the vaguest chance of ever figuring that out. All you have to do is believe, believe, believe...

Never question what you believe, OK? That's right, be a good little conservative drone. It's safer that way.

You are going to lecture me on ending the drug war? lmao