by FMZ 56 Replies latest jw friends
its all got to do with money and the ability to tax a product before they can make it legal to the public.nothing at all to do with the affects of the drug. the almighty dollar rules. its a whole lot easier to grow a weed yourself than it is to brew up some budwieser yourself.so.. how can they tax it ? hence it stays illegal.
My idea too
No one said "alcohol is good". Great Britain will put warning labels on all bottled and canned alcohol from next year, while they have declassified cannibis to a grade B drug. Both a smart move in my mind. Everything in moderation.
good question......some responses about the difference (as in alcohol isnt as "bad" because...) dont really address the real question/issue, which is: why is getting drunk "acceptable" in the eyes of society, but getting high isnt? at least thats what i got from the title.....obviously you cant compare having one beer to smoking one joint, so really we are comparing drinking for effect and smoking pot. the fact that marijuana is viewed as "worse" really doesnt make sense, even when considering the physical aspects of the argument. yes smoking is bad for your lungs (there are however ways to use marijuana without all the physical consequences of the typical joint), but aside from that, is the following quote accurate?
MJ may help dull pain for many people, but to say "alcohol has more bad effects by far" seems a little off to me. Both drugs, abused, will burn brain cells.
it is my understanding (and the first place i heard this was from an addictions counselor) that the old "pot kills brain cells" theory is a complete myth. here are two studies to consider:
Q: Does marijuana kill brain cells? (Jason, Chicago, Illinois)
A: Probably not in humans. At least, marijuana does not kill neurons (nerve cells) in monkey brains, according to two studies.
By "brain cells," I assume you mean neurons and not other brain cells, such as, glial cells. These cells actually outnumber neurons ? yet only support brain structure, digest dead neurons, and insulate neurons.
One 1991 study, conducted by William Slikker, Jr. of the National Center for Toxicological Research in Arkansas examined 64 rhesus monkeys. Slikker exposed half of these monkeys to marijuana smoke daily or weekly for a year. The other (by Gordon T. Pryor and Charles Rebert at SRI International in Menlo Park, California) studied over 30 rhesus monkeys in 1992. Pryor subjected half his monkeys to marijuana smoke one to three times a day for 6 to 12 months.
A few months after the monkeys quit inhaling the drug, the experimenters examined the monkeys' brains. They found no evidence of structural or neurochemical changes in the brains.
Further reading:
? William Slikker, Jr. et al, "Chronic Marijuana Smoke Exposure in the Rhesus Monkey," Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 17: 321-32 (1991)
? "Chronic Marijuana Smoke Exposure in the Rhesus Monkey II: Effects on Progressive Ratio and Conditioned Position Responding", by Merle Paule, et al, Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, #260, 1992, pgs. 213-222.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2004-08-19-wonderquest-2_x.htm
contrary to marijuana, though, excessive use of alcohol is proven to kill. again, we are comparing drinking for effect with using marijuana...not just having one drink a day (which has health benefits).....and anything over four drinks in a sitting is considered to be "binge drinking", which is the threshold where bodily damage begins to take place.
heres an eye-opener: more people die from alcohol withdrawal than withdrawal from any other drug. as far as brain damage goes, id say alcohol has marijuana beat by any stretch of the imagination:
According to some estimates, said Collins, alcohol abuse in the United States is perhaps the third or fourth most common cause of brain damage, and may be even higher in other countries.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-04/ace-tbr040902.php
marijuana does cause temporary memory loss, but after a smoker quits using for a long period of time, the memory functions come back completely (anyone who has experienced this first hand or has been around a heavy smoker thats quit can attest to this), which imo is at least anecdotal evidence that marijuana doesnt actually kill brain cells. when you take into account the amount of alcohol related accidents (and deaths) every year on the road, i cant see how anyone would consider marijuana to be even close to as dangerous as alcohol......yet anyone 21 and over (in the u.s.) can walk into a liquor store and walk out with a keg of beer while one having one joint in your possession can send you to jail. um, huh?
aa
Code,
It sound to me that the paranoid feeling that that mj gives you might be the problem. I think if you read up on it you will agree. Pot makes us worry sometimes because it ampifies emotions and when this happens we may have amplifies some of our deep fears and these get amplified. That's one reason I use it,, it tells me lots of things about my emotions that i don't normally feel because of distractions,, and it can be a little upsetting at times.
I was reminded of an article I read awhile back in my favorite column, The Straight Dope (no pun intended!)
 |
Home Page | Message Boards | News | Archive | Ask Cecil | Books | Buy Stuff | FAQs, etc. ]
A Straight Dope Classic from Cecil's storehouse of human knowledge
31-Jan-1997
Dear Cecil:
What's the scoop on hemp? Is it true that in earlier days of our country over 90 percent of paper was made of hemp? Is it true hemp is one of the strongest fibers known to man? Why is it illegal to grow it, since it is only about 1 percent THC? In fact, it is only a relative of the plant that is cultivated for smoking, is it not? It just seems that cultivation of hemp would be such an easy solution to the deforestation problems we are having. --Tyler Hartley, Lincoln, Nebraska
Dear Tyler:
Our deforestation problems! Yes, absolutely, hemp is a perfect solution. I myself can recall thinking as a youth (puff) that we've got terrible deforestation problems these days (puff). What can we do about them? (Puff. Long pause.) What was I just talking about?
One of the nuttier developments of recent times is the sudden interest in nonpharmacological hemp cultivation among people who've never grown so much as a radish. It's true that prior to criminalization hemp was grown commercially for paper, cloth, rope and twine, and other products. It grows pretty much anywhere, doesn't require much tending, and produces plenty of strong fiber.
During World War II the government relaxed the antihemp laws and encouraged midwestern farmers to grow the stuff for the war effort. It's said that a parachute rigging made of hemp saved the life of George Bush when the young bomber pilot bailed out of his burning plane.
What with the renewed interest in natural fibers, there's a good case to be made that hemp farming should be promoted rather than suppressed. What the hell--we might as well legalize the stuff altogether, since we know perfectly well that cannabis smoking doesn't cause insanity or any of the other horrors that federal narcotics authorities feared when they clamped down in the late 1930s.
But let's not get goofy about this. Hemp cultivation isn't going to save the planet, as some claim. It won't halt deforestation, which is driven mainly by the demand for lumber and agricultural land.
Hemp wasn't a mighty industry in the U.S. prior to passage of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Only about 1,300 acres of hemp--about two square miles--were under cultivation. It was cheaper to import the stuff than grow it.
Even so, total U.S. consumption was only about 2,000 tons, and most of that was used for rope and such. Textile manufacturers had long since abandoned hemp for cotton, which was easier to process. An improved hemp-processing technology had been invented, and the industry might have rebounded had it not been for the antihemp crusade. But nobody knows for certain.
The suppression of hemp wasn't, as some have alleged, the result of an unholy conspiracy between federal narcotics commissioner Harry Anslinger, the Du Pont corporation, and William Randolph Hearst. No question, Anslinger was a zealot who thought marijuana was a menace to society, and Hearst's newspapers had done their best to whip up antihemp hysteria. But so had everybody else in the press. Lurid antimarijuana stories appeared in the New Yorker, for God's sake.
The hemp industry didn't pose a significant threat to Du Pont and its new synthetic product, nylon. The most widely publicized early use of nylon was for women's stockings. Hemp wasn't used for this purpose.
Getting back to the present, let's not pretend that hemp and marijuana are two different things. They come from the same plant, Cannabis sativa. The "industrial hemp" variety, which is useless for recreational purposes, is tall and spindly, where the stuff prized for high-potency smoke is short and bushy. While it's reasonably easy to tell the two apart when you're up close, they can't be readily distinguished during aerial surveillance. Federal drug officials are probably right when they say legalization of hemp cultivation would greatly complicate enforcement.
Given the unlikelihood of total decriminalization of cannabis, Cecil can appreciate that proponents of the weed might want to sneak partial decriminalization in through the back door. On the one hand I think, hey, whatever works. But on the other hand I think, this is just the kind of hypocrisy we 60s types used to try so hard to avoid.
PUT THIS IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT
Dear Cecil:
I enjoy your usually well-researched columns but am sorely disappointed at your lack of depth on hemp cultivation. You said it "won't halt deforestation, which is driven mainly by the demand for lumber." Uh, if hemp becomes a source for cellulose, won't the demand for lumber ease? I heard of a bumper sticker in a rural area last Sunday: "If you don't like logging, wipe your ass with plastic." Hemp makes paper. Those hurting loggers could sorely use a new commodity to make a living from.
You dismissed the Hearst conspiracy claim with nothing but your assertion that "everybody else" did it. Just why and how was hemp suppressed? Why did the press do their best to whip up antihemp hysteria? I had my suspicions about the conspiracy theory and had hoped you would be the one to clarify it. A simple denial does not cut it.
"Hemp wasn't used for [nylon stockings.]" No it wasn't, but it certainly could be. Why isn't it just as good as the petroleum and wood pulp the companies use now? Maybe it is control of the oil wells and tree plantations? Hmm? If it was good enough during WWII, why is it goofy now?
If my current profession goes belly-up, there ain't much call for my specialty. I might need a subsistence crop. You're not helping my survival. There is a growing number of people who think the government should not be enforcing their brand of oppression and indeed the laws should be scrapped as a monstrous waste and enemy of liberty. Denying Americans the potential of this plant (whether it will save the planet or not) while the rest of the world passes us by and continues to enjoy its bounty is folly. In Russia they grow huge fields of . . . [impassioned plea truncated, no room.] --William Hathaway, via the Internet
Cecil replies:
William. Kick back. Have a toke of this. Feel better? Look, I'm the first to concede that the gentle weed is harmless and ought to be legalized. But the day I start believing this dope-will-save-the-planet stuff is the day I switch to Kool-Aid. To address your claims and some of the dozens of others that flooded my mailbox:
--CECIL ADAMS
I just ask that you not use either and then drive in my neighborhood. We have had 4 people killed by drunk drivers/or under the influence of MJ in the last 3 weeks. Unfortunately, none of the dead were the drivers.
Blondie
Prophecor,
If you consider the intent regarding the use of both, smoke a blunt and your intention is to get blasted, in fact the higher the better, that is usually the objective.
Not so. "Medical marijuana" is not just flimflam. It really does help with pain and stress. The "high" is just a bonus.
Right there is one of the greatest differences, you have to choose to get as high with alcohol,
You can fine-tune marijuana dosage too. With experience, I've learned just exactly how much smoke or "spiked" peanut butter equals an effective sub-psychoactive dose - enough to control pain but not enough to inspire a fit of the giggles. And I've recently discovered, to my surprise, that a dose too low to trip out on will still improve my mood to the point that I can cheerfully do tasks I would otherwise put off.
The only other problem regarding smokin' a spliff comes from the almost insane damage that comes from ingesting such a thing,
It's true that marijuana has a higher proportion of tars & stuff than tobacco - but who smokes 40 joints a day? Many tobacco smokers go through 2 packs (40 cigs) a day.
smoke at such an intense degree of heat, 100's of btu's, who knows,
I've never measured smoke in "BTU's". How many BTU's does a cigarette lighter put out? Is the heat required to burn marijuana greater than that required for tobacco?
Anyway, that's what a vaporizer is for. THC vaporizes at a lower temperature than the burning point of the plant material. Wrap a heatproof plastic bag around it, and voila - a much cleaner smoke.
Or you can eat it - slower, but even easier on the lungs.
holding that smoke as long as you can, having your bodies natural inclination to expel that kind of energy refused,
Technique has changed as research has advanced. It's now known that most of the "good stuff" is absorbed within the first few seconds - holding your breath does nothing to contribute. So I don't.
There are, however no scriptural support for the blatant abuse that comes from improper and illicit use of drugs.
Ah, now your agenda shows.
1. Cannabis was not illegal anywhere in the world when those verses were written (but it may have been unknown in Palestine).
2. An elderly friend of ours, a nonsmoker and nondrinker, takes a little cannabutter in the evenings to control nausea caused by her prescription medications. Watch who you call a "drug abuser."
3. I've never been more than a social drinker - but since taking up cannabis I've pretty much given up alcohol altogether - it just doesn't do as good a job for pain relief, stress control or spiritual work.
gently feral
I respectfully disagree with your position, though you present an interesting perspective in defending your argument.
I was not looking at the smoking of marijuana from a medicinal standpoint. However, if thats where the thread had its basis, then I will research these points further, which have an interesting spin mind you, but as it appears to me at this point, is still spin.
Marijuana is the.........
Pass the chips
Hey, who wants to order a pepperoni pizza?
I like pepperoni! Can we have ice cream and cookies and dessert afterwards?
*talks all cottonmouth and stuff*
Gumbongload
