Why isn't Marijuana legal?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MikeyLSU

Platinum Member
Dec 21, 2005
2,747
0
71
it is illegal because the public doesn't want it legalized.

If the American public wanted it to be legal, it would happen. example, look how long prohibition lasted.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
Originally posted by: marincounty
I'll post this link again for those who refuse to believe it:
Text

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.
The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought
Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.

Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.

While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.

holy shit.

this is the surprise on my face :Q
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: marincounty
I'll post this link again for those who refuse to believe it:
Text

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.
The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought
Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.

Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.

While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.

holy shit.

this is the surprise on my face :Q

Yeah, that shit is like mother's milk. Better than oatmeal....

Nice find, however. Those results are a bit surprising, IF RIGHT.

-Robert

 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Originally posted by: chess9
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: marincounty
I'll post this link again for those who refuse to believe it:
Text

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.
The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought
Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.

Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.

While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.

holy shit.

this is the surprise on my face :Q

Yeah, that shit is like mother's milk. Better than oatmeal....

Nice find, however. Those results are a bit surprising, IF RIGHT.

-Robert

Seems everyone wanted to avoid the article I linked in a post about half-way through this topic. Shame.
The article I linked was a few years prior to the article marincounty linked, and only supports the same claims. So it seems a few underground studies are linking THC with anti-tumor properties. I say underground, because it's a shame that so few know about these published studies, and that would be because they just don't receive the same attention, and national media doesn't make it widely known.


And as for the earlier post about marijuana and potential ability to relieve ADD symptoms... I'm half tempted to believe this. Only because it seems marijuana kind of makes people get very focused on whatever they are doing. Now, since it is illegal and people tend to use it solely to have more fun, they relax and do things other than important work most of the time, but if they could use it freely, I imagine it might have a beneficial impact on schoolwork performance, because they wouldn't be worried about 'wasting their high' on something not fun.

With the drug being illegal, it has a different culture that surrounds it, and they have specific interests in it due to a more limited use. Even if they have access to pounds of it and can stay high all day, they are limited in where they can use it. If they can toke up while walking to class at their university, they'll pay more attention to the subject matter, and because of that, will probably be more inclined to smoke up whenever doing classwork for that subject, just because they likely enjoyed it far more while buzzed with THC than sober, as well... most college work is boring, and weed tends to make everything better. :p
But in all seriousness, the social behavior seen today is far different than what would likely be the norm if everyone could do it safely and legally in public.

Now, yes you would likely see an increase in habitual/psychological 'addiction', however it is not a physical addiction. Different animals.
 

DarrelSPowers

Senior member
Jul 9, 2008
781
1
0
One thing I've begun to wonder lately is what beef God has with weed.

I've read a few editorial articles over the past few weeks about the decriminalization in Massachusetts vote, and there's been a very religious undercurrent in alot of the conservitives who think all hell will break loose if the question passes. I mean it makes sence, but I'm wondering where conservatives get that god thinks its bad to smoke? I mean, I'm a fairly religious catholic who still goes to church a few times a year (and my mom still calls and says she's praying for me), but I must have missed something back in catholic school. I don't mean to knock anyone else's religion, but is this doctrine taught in churches around the country? I wish I could find some of these editorials online, but they've all been in shitty local papers I read on the walk to work...
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: Anubis

You can quote all the studies you want supporting side A, and someone who cares more then I do can some in and site studies supporting side B. none of that really matters as smoking weed is a personal choice just like cigs and drinking, people know its bad for them and CHOOSE to do it anyway. Government should not impose laws limiting personal choice/freedom regardless of how stupid they may be

I'm on board with this, and I've never smoked weed and have no desire to do so (believe me or not - I don't care). I don't choose to smoke weed, but I strongly object to the gov't making the decision for me.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: eskimospy
You do realize that the Democratic party has been far more amenable to the legalization of some drugs than the Republican party, right? A lot of the people who are ganging up on chess are in fact left wingers, such as myself. It's more like people ganging up on an authoritarian, why does it have to be left/right?
You're stating the obvious. Why is a criticism of the democrat party considered an endorsement of the republican? I just think it's funny that the only one advocating it to be illegal (to this point) is a "leftie", and his reasons are consistent with the whole "we know what's best for the people" notion.

If you use the search function you will find a dozen other threads similar to this one where die hard Republicans are making the same arguments. My point was that the problem is with authoritarianism instead of a political party and so it seems sort of silly to single one out for criticism.
You expect it out of republicans. My point was just that there are many on the other side of the aisle that are more than happy to pick and choose which personal liberties we get to enjoy.

Just ask most Dems about being able to choose your own retirement plan, instead of being forced into Social Security. No personal freedom for you!! And then there's gun control . . . The Dems like to pretend they're all about civil liberties, but they support only some, not all, just like the GOP. They just disagree with their Republican brethern which liberties to suppress.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
59,208
13,801
136
Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
it is illegal because the public doesn't want it legalized.

If the American public wanted it to be legal, it would happen. example, look how long prohibition lasted.

Apples and oranges.
 

DarrelSPowers

Senior member
Jul 9, 2008
781
1
0
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
it is illegal because the public doesn't want it legalized.

If the American public wanted it to be legal, it would happen. example, look how long prohibition lasted.

Apples and oranges.

I wish there were some like... 130 year olds on this forum that could tell us what life was like during prohibition.

I know for one that my grandfather made tons of money smuggling booze from canada, unfortunately he died completely broke shortly after the great depression.

Personally I couldn't imagine not being able to grab a pint with my friends after work. The reason I think prohibition only lasted a few years was alcohol activists were probably a bit more "active" than marijuana activists are... haha.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
it is illegal because the public doesn't want it legalized.

If the American public wanted it to be legal, it would happen. example, look how long prohibition lasted.

Alcohol was never the target of the stigmatization in the same way that MJ is/has been portrayed.

That's the major difference.

The fact that MJ is classified in the same way as heroin is precisely what's wrong with our drug policy.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,158
18,650
146
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: trance247
I am voting yes on 2 in MA! :) They will collect some much money in fines, watch city roads paved in gold! :)

What is Number 2 in Boston?

Automatic seizure if caught with MJ?

Question 2 is on the Massachusetts State Ballot this year. If passed, it would decriminalize possession of less than 1 ounce. The punishment doesn't fit the crime, enough signatures were collected to get this to the voters, :thumbsup:
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,158
18,650
146
Originally posted by: chess9
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: chess9
Originally posted by: Howard
Originally posted by: chess9
Because you will get emphysema, heart disease, possibly diabetes, and cancer. By the age of 50 you will be sucking down 5 lpm of supplemental oxygen and will be facing probable death before the age of 70.

-Robert
Can you prove any of this?

I can't prove a thing, but quite a few researchers have provided significant evidence of emphysema alone. It should be noted that those who smoke MJ inhale much more deeply than cigarette smokers, and they get signs of emphysema 20 years earlier than cigarette smokers.

"Marijuana is inhaled as extremely hot fumes to the peak inspiration and held for as long as possible before slow exhalation. This predisposes to greater damage to the lungs and makes marijuana smokers are more prone to bullous disease as compared to cigarette smokers."

Patients who smoke marijuana inhale more and hold their breath four times longer than cigarette smokers. It is the breathing manoeuvres of marijuana smokers that serve to increase the concentration and pulmonary deposition of inhaled particulate matter ? resulting in greater and more rapid lung destruction."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...08/01/080123104017.htm

And this from WebMD:

"In our clinic we have encountered several young marijuana smokers with no history of tobacco smoking or other significant risk factors who were diagnosed with lung cancer or other ... cancers. It's certainly reasonable to suspect there could be an association with the development of emphysema." Though more study is needed, he says, "for the recreational user with a full life expectancy, the potentially harmful effects of marijuana smoking are a legitimate concern."

http://www.webmd.com/news/2000...ar-marijuana-emphysema

These same, or similar, concerns were expressed about cigarette smoking in the 1950's and 1960's, but they were poo-pooed by people who knew much better, like tobacco farmers, cigarette smokers, and advertisers/manufacturers.

Lots of people are in the line to Darwin's Waiting Room.

-Robert

No doubt cannabis has negative health effects. So what?

Why didn't you say that in the first place you dumbass? You know all about the ill effects of weed, yet ask me for proof? What a douchebag. Have I mentioned how grass kills brain cells? Keep looking, you may have ONE left.

-Robert

I didn't see where you mentioned that "grass" kills brain cells. Do you also have any webmd links to back that up? lol, As far as inhaling and holding it, that's what you do if you don't know what you're doing. THC, the main player, has a low evaporation point and sticks to the lungs as soon as it hits them, no need to inhale and hold. Ever hear of THESE?, effectively creating up to 95% pure THC smoke, almost no negative side effects. I would go out on a limb and say the tobacco and alcohol industries can't offer that. Making judgmental statements and posting a couple links doesn't make you right. Also, watch THIS
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: ch33zw1z
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: trance247
I am voting yes on 2 in MA! :) They will collect some much money in fines, watch city roads paved in gold! :)

What is Number 2 in Boston?

Automatic seizure if caught with MJ?

Question 2 is on the Massachusetts State Ballot this year. If passed, it would decriminalize possession of less than 1 ounce. The punishment doesn't fit the crime, enough signatures were collected to get this to the voters, :thumbsup:

Unfortunately, the federal government doesn't recognize state's rights when it comes to drug laws. If Massachusetts (or any other state) legalized MJ or any other drug, users in that state could still be arrested by the feds.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: ch33zw1z
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: trance247
I am voting yes on 2 in MA! :) They will collect some much money in fines, watch city roads paved in gold! :)

What is Number 2 in Boston?

Automatic seizure if caught with MJ?

Question 2 is on the Massachusetts State Ballot this year. If passed, it would decriminalize possession of less than 1 ounce. The punishment doesn't fit the crime, enough signatures were collected to get this to the voters, :thumbsup:

Unfortunately, the federal government doesn't recognize state's rights when it comes to drug laws. If Massachusetts (or any other state) legalized MJ or any other drug, users in that state could still be arrested by the feds.

Yep, just ask Denver or CA.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: ch33zw1z
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: trance247
I am voting yes on 2 in MA! :) They will collect some much money in fines, watch city roads paved in gold! :)

What is Number 2 in Boston?

Automatic seizure if caught with MJ?

Question 2 is on the Massachusetts State Ballot this year. If passed, it would decriminalize possession of less than 1 ounce. The punishment doesn't fit the crime, enough signatures were collected to get this to the voters, :thumbsup:

Unfortunately, the federal government doesn't recognize state's rights when it comes to drug laws. If Massachusetts (or any other state) legalized MJ or any other drug, users in that state could still be arrested by the feds.

Yep, just ask Denver or CA.

One good thing about it though is that the feds get pretty bad PR for busting people who are in compliance with state law. If enough states legalize it, they will probably force some federal action on the issue.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
it is illegal because the public doesn't want it legalized.

If the American public wanted it to be legal, it would happen. example, look how long prohibition lasted.

I would like to see that on a national referendum. Then we'd see what the public does or doesn't want. The supreme authority should be the people in matters such as this.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
it is illegal because the public doesn't want it legalized.

If the American public wanted it to be legal, it would happen. example, look how long prohibition lasted.

I would like to see that on a national referendum. Then we'd see what the public does or doesn't want. The supreme authority should be the people in matters such as this.

If the history of the state referendums are any guide, legalization of marijuana usually starts off with very high support. It is then met by an all out blitz from social conservative and law enforcement lobbies at which point the support markedly decreases.

So, I guess it depends on when you ask.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,158
18,650
146
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: ch33zw1z
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: trance247
I am voting yes on 2 in MA! :) They will collect some much money in fines, watch city roads paved in gold! :)

What is Number 2 in Boston?

Automatic seizure if caught with MJ?

Question 2 is on the Massachusetts State Ballot this year. If passed, it would decriminalize possession of less than 1 ounce. The punishment doesn't fit the crime, enough signatures were collected to get this to the voters, :thumbsup:

Unfortunately, the federal government doesn't recognize state's rights when it comes to drug laws. If Massachusetts (or any other state) legalized MJ or any other drug, users in that state could still be arrested by the feds.

Yea, quite sad.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: ch33zw1z
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: trance247
I am voting yes on 2 in MA! :) They will collect some much money in fines, watch city roads paved in gold! :)

What is Number 2 in Boston?

Automatic seizure if caught with MJ?

Question 2 is on the Massachusetts State Ballot this year. If passed, it would decriminalize possession of less than 1 ounce. The punishment doesn't fit the crime, enough signatures were collected to get this to the voters, :thumbsup:

Unfortunately, the federal government doesn't recognize state's rights when it comes to drug laws. If Massachusetts (or any other state) legalized MJ or any other drug, users in that state could still be arrested by the feds.

Yep, just ask Denver or CA.

One good thing about it though is that the feds get pretty bad PR for busting people who are in compliance with state law. If enough states legalize it, they will probably force some federal action on the issue.

Hasn't stopped them in CA....
 

n yusef

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2005
2,158
1
0
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
it is illegal because the public doesn't want it legalized.

If the American public wanted it to be legal, it would happen. example, look how long prohibition lasted.

I would like to see that on a national referendum. Then we'd see what the public does or doesn't want. The supreme authority should be the people in matters such as this.

Why should public opinion be important? To justifiably ban a substance, one must believe that it is dangerous to the user and/or others, and that it is the role of government to regulate dangerous substances.

A substance is either dangerous or not, so the public's opinion on this is irrelevant. The bigger issue is the role of government in regulating personal liberty. I think this ought to be consistent with precedent; marijuana should receive the same treatment as other substances that are determined to be of the same level of danger. If it is determined that marijuana is as bad as heroin, then it should be treated as such. Or, if it is equated with alcohol, then it should be legal with the same restrictions.

Too often public opinion is touted as some divine decider, that the view of the majority is always right, no matter how ignorant, bigoted and most importantly, ever-changing it is.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: n yusef

Why should public opinion be important? To justifiably ban a substance, one must believe that it is dangerous to the user and/or others, and that it is the role of government to regulate dangerous substances.

A substance is either dangerous or not, so the public's opinion on this is irrelevant. The bigger issue is the role of government in regulating personal liberty. I think this ought to be consistent with precedent; marijuana should receive the same treatment as other substances that are determined to be of the same level of danger. If it is determined that marijuana is as bad as heroin, then it should be treated as such. Or, if it is equated with alcohol, then it should be legal with the same restrictions.

Too often public opinion is touted as some divine decider, that the view of the majority is always right, no matter how ignorant, bigoted and most importantly, ever-changing it is.

That's not actually true in this case. There's no constitutional right to smoking weed. That means all the government needs to show is a rational basis for the law. (and that's super easy to do, because 'rational basis' can cover almost anything)

Weed will be legal in our lifetimes, no worries. The government has spent a lot of time and money lying to us about how dangerous it is, and that will take some time to undo. It's already unraveling though, so it's just a matter of time.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
From a health and social policy perspective, including the future costs of healthcare (especially Medicaid/Medicare costs), it makes more sense to prohibit alcohol and marijuana than to legalize it.

If you value the right to kill yourself with drugs and alcohol, your views will be different.


-Robert
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Originally posted by: chess9
From a health and social policy perspective, including the future costs of healthcare (especially Medicaid/Medicare costs), it makes more sense to prohibit alcohol and marijuana than to legalize it.

If you value the right to kill yourself with drugs and alcohol, your views will be different.


-Robert

My views aren't different because of 'valuing the right to "kill yourself"', which is pure bullshit anyhow. My views are different because it's Federal Government overstepping its bounds yet again, and the state politicians are letting this happen, and the Judicial system has let it happen too, completely overstepping the Constitution. sigh.
Federal government should have NO say in regards to drugs. That is supposed to be something individual states have control over.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
59,208
13,801
136
Originally posted by: chess9
From a health and social policy perspective, including the future costs of healthcare (especially Medicaid/Medicare costs), it makes more sense to prohibit alcohol and marijuana than to legalize it.

If you value the right to kill yourself with drugs and alcohol, your views will be different.


-Robert

Yes, authoritarian versus libertarian, isn't it?
If those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither, what do people who would sacrifice liberty for lower healthcare costs deserve?
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
Originally posted by: chess9
From a health and social policy perspective, including the future costs of healthcare (especially Medicaid/Medicare costs), it makes more sense to prohibit alcohol and marijuana than to legalize it.

If you value the right to kill yourself with drugs and alcohol, your views will be different.


-Robert

Why stop at MJ and alcohol?

Why not continue onto snickers, butter, heavy cream, foie gras, kobe beef, fatty toro, rib eye steak, triple cheeseburgers, anything deep fried, extreme sports...