Marijuana may actually be good for the brain

[Reaktor4]

Fine.

I did nothing more than what people do with cigarettes, only this is less harmful.

And I still don't care about opiates, IMO they should remain illegal, along with every drug... except marijuana

On one hand, weed should be legal because its less harmful than cigarettes. On the other, all other recreational drugs should be illegal, despite the fact that they are also less harmful.
You cant say "this drug is too harmful to be legal". For the purposes of the legalisation argument the harm that a clean drug causes is largely irrelevant because when a drug is prohibited the number of users increases, criminals take over the market and sell drugs contaminated with anything ranging from non toxic fillers to animal shit/poisons/other drugs for VASTLY inflated prices, and there is no real education on how to use drugs as safely as possibly leading to things such as ecstacy users overdosing on water and heroin users ****ing up their veins because they cant inject properly.
Therefore the drug becomes more harmful to more people. Other harmful effects of prohibition include, but are not limited to:
loss of basic rights
gangs (who btw collectively make £225 billion/$400 billion a year from dealing last time i checked) fighting for turf
addicts burgling houses or commiting other crimes/scams to get money
an abundance of misinformation constantly being fed to the public from both the media and governments (brainwashing), causing additional problems
billions wasted enforcing these nonsensical laws and jailing (or executing, in some countries) otherwise innocent people
loss of productivity
spread of disease like hepatitis c and hiv because of restrictions on clean needles
loss of the ability to utilise valuable resources like hemp (the most useful known resource in the world?) and the medicinal properties of many drugs
all sorts of other crime escalating
murder rates multiplying
etc
etc
etc
Those who want weed and only weed legal because "its not very harmful" are HURTING the fight against these ****ing drug laws.
Need i make this any clearer?

 

[MrWhite]

Fine.


On one hand, weed should be legal because its less harmful than cigarettes. On the other, all other recreational drugs should be illegal, despite the fact that they are also less harmful.
You cant say "this drug is too harmful to be legal". For the purposes of the legalisation argument the harm that a clean drug causes is largely irrelevant because when a drug is prohibited the number of users increases, criminals take over the market and sell drugs contaminated with anything ranging from non toxic fillers to animal shit/poisons/other drugs for VASTLY inflated prices, and there is no real education on how to use drugs as safely as possibly leading to things such as ecstacy users overdosing on water and heroin users ****ing up their veins because they cant inject properly.
Therefore the drug becomes more harmful to more people. Other harmful effects of prohibition include, but are not limited to:
loss of basic rights
gangs (who btw collectively make £225 billion/$400 billion a year from dealing last time i checked) fighting for turf
addicts burgling houses or commiting other crimes/scams to get money
an abundance of misinformation constantly being fed to the public from both the media and governments (brainwashing), causing additional problems
billions wasted enforcing these nonsensical laws and jailing (or executing, in some countries) otherwise innocent people
loss of productivity
spread of disease like hepatitis c and hiv because of restrictions on clean needles
loss of the ability to utilise valuable resources like hemp (the most useful known resource in the world?) and the medicinal properties of many drugs
all sorts of other crime escalating
murder rates multiplying
etc
etc
etc
Those who want weed and only weed legal because "its not very harmful" are HURTING the fight against these ****ing drug laws.
Need i make this any clearer?

THANK YOU. THANK YOU CHRIST.

Now I've been educated a little more, now wouldn't that have been easier in the first place than just calling me a naive idiot (out of context)?

I agree with almost all points there, but man, you know stoners, they don't go into all that, they say "Dude... dude. Come on... dude. Legalize it. Dude."

But the reason I only want weed legal is that you really can't overdose on it unlike other drugs used in excess, it (now this isn't completely true as anything can turn you into an addict, but the chances of a marijuana addict are much slimmer than say... a coke addict) isn't addictive and won't suck all the money out of my bank account or make me pawn off my VCR/Car/Children/401k plan to be able to obtain it. You can still "handle yourself" when high from marijuana, unlike something like mescaline or salvia divinorum where you lose all control over the body, and legalization will stop me from buying from that dumbass neighbor I have who laces his stuff with ether and doesn't tell me...

Now, that doesn't mean I don't think that most drugs shouldn't be decriminalized, I mean, should a coke head be sent to jail IMO, nah, rehab and a small fine is fine, makes more sense honestly.

And btw, thanks, I'm saving that little post in a text file.

I think we can all lay this thread to rest, you've made some (though it took a damn while) verrrrry good points and not to mention school the shit out of me.

BUT for the record, I'm not a hypocrite.

 

[Reaktor4]

I agree with almost all points there, but man, you know stoners, they don't go into all that, they say "Dude... dude. Come on... dude. Legalize it. Dude."

Well i know plenty who do, including myself obviously.

But the reason I only want weed legal is that you really can't overdose on it unlike other drugs used in excess,

You can overdose on nearly anything. This is not grounds to make something illegal, otherwise everything would be illegal.
And it should be noted that most fatal 'drug overdoses' are actually deaths caused by adulterants in the drug, especially with heroin.

it (now this isn't completely true as anything can turn you into an addict, but the chances of a marijuana addict are much slimmer than say... a coke addict) isn't addictive and won't suck all the money out of my bank account or make me pawn off my VCR/Car/Children/401k plan to be able to obtain it.

You have to understand that coke/smack etc currently costs anywhere from 5-50 times what it would cost if it was sold legally. If and when all drugs are eventually legal, people will no longer need to resort to drastic measures to pay for their addiction.
And addiction is a complex issue in itself, there are many factors to be considered but i wont get into that now.

Now, that doesn't mean I don't think that most drugs shouldn't be decriminalized, I mean, should a coke head be sent to jail IMO, nah, rehab and a small fine is fine, makes more sense honestly.

It doesnt make any sense. Why should they be punished at all?

(though it took a damn while)

I havent said anything that i havent already said here at least 5 times..

 

[MrWhite]

Well i know plenty who do, including myself obviously.

You can overdose on nearly anything. This is not grounds to make something illegal, otherwise everything would be illegal.
And it should be noted that most fatal 'drug overdoses' are actually deaths caused by adulterants in the drug, especially with heroin.

You have to understand that coke/smack etc currently costs anywhere from 5-50 times what it would cost if it was sold legally. If and when all drugs are eventually legal, people will no longer need to resort to drastic measures to pay for their addiction.
And addiction is a complex issue in itself, there are many factors to be considered but i wont get into that now.

It doesnt make any sense. Why should they be punished at all?

I havent said anything that i havent already said here at least 5 times..

Well... ...

Yep.

EDIT: Err I mean to say... touchée

 

[Takaitokuten]

Even if you think you know all the facts, please read the the article provided by the link below. Keep the peace And load another.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/drugs/hemp-marijuana/


Here's just a tiny bit of the article.



Isn't smoking marijuana worse for you than smoking cigarettes?

There are many reasons why it is not. You may have heard
that "one joint is equal to ten cigarrettes'' but this is
exagerrated and misleading. Marijuana does contain more tar
than tobacco -- but low tar cigarettes cause just as much
cancer, so what is that supposed to mean? Scientists have
shown that smoking any plant is bad for your lungs, because
it increases the number of `lesions' in your small airways.
This usually does not threaten your life, but there is a
chance it will lead to infections. Marijuana users who are
worried about this can find less harmful ways of taking
marijuana like eating or vaporizing. (Be careful --
marijuana is safe to eat -- but tobacco is not, you might
overdose) Marijuana does not seem to cause cancer the way
tobacco does, though.

o Marijuana smokers generally don't chain smoke, and
so they smoke less. Marijuana is not physically
addictive like tobacco. The more potent marijuana is,
the less a smoker will use at a time.

o Tobacco contains nicotine, and marijuana doesn't.
Nicotine may harden the arteries and may be
responsible for much of the heart disease caused by
tobacco. New research has found that it may also
cause a lot of the cancer in tobacco smokers and
people who live or work where tobacco is smoked.
This is because it breaks down into a cancer causing
chemical called `N Nitrosamine' when it is burned
(and maybe even while it is inside the body as well.)

o Marijuana contains THC. THC is a bronchial dilator,
which means it works like a cough drop and opens up
your lungs, which aids clearance of smoke and dirt.
Nicotine does just the opposite; it makes your lungs
bunch up and makes it harder to cough anything up.

o There are benefits from marijuana (besides bronchial
dilation) that you don't get from tobacco. Mainly,
marijuana makes you relax, which improves your health
and well-being.

o Scientists do not really know what it is that causes
malignant lung cancer in tobacco. Many think it may
be a substance known as Lead 210. Of course, there
are many other theories as to what does cause cancer,
but if this is true, it is easy to see why NO CASE OF
LUNG CANCER RESULTING FROM MARIJUANA USE ALONE HAS
EVER BEEN DOCUMENTED, because tobacco contains much
more of this substance than marijuana.

o Marijuana laws make it harder to use marijuana
without damaging your body. Water-pipes are illegal
in many states. Filtered cigarettes, vaporizers, and
inhalers have to be mass produced, which is hard to
arrange `underground.' People don't eat marijuana
often because you need more to get as high that way,
and it isn't cheap or easy to get (which is the
reason why some people will stoop to smoking leaves.)
This may sound funny to you -- but the more legal
marijuana gets, the safer it is.

Alot of people argue that cannabis is a highly addictive substance...
Though I know it can be somewhat psychologically "addicting". So can a cup of coffee for that matter... the effects it produces are pleasant. You want it not because your body needs it, unlike a physical addiction where there are consequences to NOT using the said substance, but because you enjoy the state of mind while "high". I prefer to call it "opened" because for thousands of years it's been used as a type of key to unlock certain receptors in the mind, thus, providing deeper insights into ones self and the world around him/her by increasing physical and mental perception. That's why in many cultures it was and still is referred to as a "teacher plant".​

 

[DrDevin]

Any sort of inhaled particles harms your lungs. That is fact, even wood smoke is not good for you. Your lungs dont like things rather then air in them, thats why your throat and nose filters out particles that would enter the lungs. You compare it to smoking and say it is less harmful buy still harmful. You get one short life before you die. If you want to throw away even an hour of your life it is not my choice to stop you.

This is the reason why I treat my body with the utmost respect.

I also maintain my position as top student in my school by working and learning. I would like to see getting high help you become smarter then me. I suggest you stop burning plants and read a book or take the time to learn from people who know something you dont, so you can become as good as them.

 

[Milkman]

Ah I added you to my xfire white, just log on and I accept my invitation.

 

[Absinthe]

I also maintain my position as top student in my school by working and learning. I would like to see getting high help you become smarter then me. I suggest you stop burning plants and read a book or take the time to learn from people who know something you dont, so you can become as good as them.

What the Hell cannabis has to do with being a better person is a connection I can't quite make.

There's more to life than getting top grades, and getting high isn't necessarily an impairment in that sense. Welcome to existence, where shit tends to grind. I and others will continue to live it because, in all honesty, the difference of a few years in your life means nothing if you didn't enjoy it.

 

[Shinobi]

bah, I cook my weed so the whole lung health thing is moot point...

 

[The Mullinator]

I also maintain my position as top student in my school by working and learning. I would like to see getting high help you become smarter then me. I suggest you stop burning plants and read a book or take the time to learn from people who know something you dont, so you can become as good as them.

Second year in one of the top Universities in Canada and I along with most people I know have smoked up at least once, and no they are not people doing poorly in university either. Last year there was even a few coveted locations for going to smoke up. Sorry but marijuana usage does not equate to low life.

 

[Shinobi]

mullinator and devin are both right


in devins case, he will have "conventional intellegence" but will face the HUGE hindrance of not being able to relate to people outside his social circle....

On the other hand, if all you do in life is smoke dope then you're going nowhere


the key to life is balance and understanding...

 

[Reaktor4]

Many think it may be a substance known as Lead 210.

This is correct. The rest is all irrelevant really. Nobody seems to know this but tobacco causes cancer because it is radioactive, because of how it is grown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking#Radioactive_components_of_tobacco

"Some researchers suggest that the degree of carcinogenicity of these radioactive elements is sufficient to account for most, if not all, cases of lung cancer related to smoking. In support of this hypothetical link between radioactive elements in tobacco and cancer is the observation that bladder cancer incidence is also proportional to the amount of tobacco smoked, even though nonradioactive carcinogens have not been detected in the urine of even heavy smokers; however, urine of smokers contains about six times more polonium 210 than that of nonsmokers, suggesting strongly that the polonium 210 is the cause of the bladder carcinogenicity, and would be expected to act similarly in the lungs and other tissue. Furthermore, many of the lung cancers contracted by cigarette smokers are adenocarcinomas, which are characteristic of the type of damage produced by alpha particle radiation such as that of polonium 210. It has also been suggested that the radioactive and chemical carcinogens in tobacco smoke act synergistically to cause a higher incidence of cancer than each alone.

Skeptics of the role of polonium 210 in lung cancer note that it is soluble in water, and thus would be excreted (confirmed by the high polonium 210 concentrations in the urine of smokers, referred to above). However, the inhibition of the clearing action of the cilia in the respiratory tract by tobacco smoke, the stickiness of the particles of tar precipitated from the smoke, and deposits within the lung of insoluble lead 210 which then breaks down into polonium 210, have all been postulated as mechanisms by which polonium 210 exposure continues for long periods. Even after having stopped smoking for a year, concentrations of lead 210 and polonium 210 in rib bones and alveolar lung tissue remain twice as high in ex-smokers as in those who had never smoked."

Also see
http://www.cannabisculture.com/news/tobacco
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/seta/2003/06/05/stories/2003060500020200.htm
http://quitsmoking.lifetips.com/tip...l-that-be-radioactive-or-non-radioactive.html
http://www.acsa2000.net/HealthAlert/lungcancer.html

Weed is not grown in highly radioactive soil. In fact, afaik, non-radioactive tobacco has never been proven to cause cancer.

I suggest you stop burning plants and read a book or take the time to learn from people who know something you dont, so you can become as good as them.

I suggest you remove your head from your ass.