weed, marry jane, tree, pot, grass, herb, bud, sticky icky

[TQWcS]

Should marijuana be legal.

[Jose]

The most alarming correlation is that people who smoke pot are far more likely to take up smoking tobacco, which is truly bad stuff.

[ST88]

Though it's not a tax, America does profit off of marijuana. Local police authorities who confiscate cash and/or property from drug possessors get to keep them. You can't tax illegal activity, but you can appropriate whatever you want from its operations.

I highly doubt they profit from the war on drugs since it costs billions to support. If we made it legal to tax the offenders then the war would pay for itself. People would have to make an economic decision, do they value the utility of money or weed more. The libertarian party has supported this for years.

Law enforcement itself does not pay taxes, but individual peace officers do pay taxes. The difference is that law enforcement gets to raid the drug-runners' stashes, whereas our tax money goes down the rat hole.

I think you're using the word tax incorrectly here. I think what you mean to say is fine. You can't tax an activity unless it is legal. Once you tax it, you are acknowledging the legality of it, because tax implies commerce. Most drug offenders are already being fined. Increase the fines and you will increase the amount of crime necessary to procure the drugs because out-of-pocket expenses remain constant.

Insurance premium costs have risen almost 200% in the last four years.

Why add to that?

You could make a why add to that case for just about anything, from tourism in space to Viagra. And while we're on the subject of insurance, don't think for a second that marijuana use would logically raise insurance rates higher than any other "sin" behavior. Life insurance rates, for example, might be comparable with tobacco rates if such things could be proven. All I'm saying is that insurance companies are naturally skittish and will raise rates at the drop of a hat.

Further, insurance rates shouldn't even be a part of this discussion, because the public will be accountable for the uninsured user, just like they are now. Even if insurers decide to raise their marijuana-linked rates, that's a choice for the individual to accept or reject. And if insurers were to get into the business of actuarial studies on marijuana users, we might actually find out the truth about its effects on the population.

You can undermine psychological addiction all you would like to. It is an easy thing to do when you have never experienced it. Drug companies in no way tell people that their life is empty without drugs... and doctors do not tell people that either. I suppose you are talking about antidepressant drugs like zoloft? Have you ever been with a person that experiences clinical depression? Some people, without the help of medicines like zoloft, would kill themselves if nothing is done. Also in severe cases of clinical depression the doctor recommends a combo of therapy and medicine.

You may notice that I was not decrying the use of these drugs as a whole. My grandmother has obsessive-compulsive disorder and is helped immensely by the drugs she takes (can't remember the names at the moment). My beef is with the industry convincing people that they may have these disorders. "Generalized anxiety disorder" for example, is a made-up term that was not clinical until the pharmaceutical industry said it was. The reason this advertising works is the same reason that religion works. People are made to feel that there is something wrong with them, that they've always suspected something was missing or that their body chemistry was off from the other people they see in the world, happily going about their lives. Enter the pharmaceutical companies. And now we have legitimate drugs being used as lifestyle drugs. Better living through chemistry.

Psychological addiction is not the same thing as physiological addiction (preferably called dependence). The two work together for cigarettes, for example, because of the motor action of the act of smoking and the feeling of the cigarette & the smoke, and the act of acquiring cigarettes from the store, etc.; and the nicotine that acts as the chemical agent. Here is what the Merck manual says about the two:

The distinction between physical dependence and psychologic dependence is fundamental. Physical dependence is a pharmacologic process marked by the occurrence of an abstinence (withdrawal) syndrome after abrupt discontinuation of an opioid drug or administration of an antagonist. Psychologic dependence refers to a behavioral syndrome in which there is overriding concern with the use and acquisition of the drug... There is no abstinence syndrome when marijuana is discontinued.

Please note here that I am not taking Merck's word for it that the above is actually true. I am quoting this to show that even those pharmacology corporations who try to manipulate our behavior concede that there is no marijuana addiction. Pure psychologic dependence, which is what "marijuana addiction" refers to, is not, in and of itself, a medical condition. I would contend that a large part of this psychological condition has to do with the fact that it is illegal, and that even procuring the drug produces a mild psychological effect. If "getting the drug" has greater addictive power than actually using the drug, how can you argue that legalization will greatly enhance this effect?

Also remember THC amounts in marijuana have increases from the ol' woodstock days of 1% to around 28% concentration. If it did take such high amounts of THC, that could never be reached by marijuana, to relieve symptoms one wonders why people are for the medical use of the drug?

This is not the contention. Marijuana use is reported by many patients to alleviate certain painful conditions that Marinol can't. Nausea, for example. Or drastic weight loss (Marinol doesn't give you the munchies). The reason Marinol is concentrated is because the effects of pure THC are different from the effects of the modulated THC found in marijuana. Concentration of the pure form is required to come close to those effects, but it also has more severe side effects precisely because of the concentration.

The 28% increase in THC argument does not reflect a comparable amount to the THC found in Marinol. The increase of THC concentration in marijuana would have to be much larger than is physically possible within the plant in order to match the concentration of THC in a Marinol capsule. I don't really see what you're trying to get at here. Marijuana works for some people and doesn't for others, just like any other drug. Why should we yank it from the people for whom it works?

A study done by H.N. Bhargava et al in 1996 showed that immune response was normalized when tolerance to THC was achieved (8 days in lab mice), and that there was equal incidence of initial suppression and assistance of various immune system responses.

Above you stated you didn't trust mice. Come on flip flopper!

I'm going to assume that you were thinking of a different conversation with someone else, because I don't believe that I said that I didn't trust mice studies. What I said was that there are studies that use larger-than-useful doses of certain chemicals in mice. It would not be possible to generalize such studies to regular human use unless concurrent normal-dose studies were also performed. This is what happened to saccharine in the 1970s(date?). Mice were given doses of saccharine on a daily basis that a human would not be able to consume in a year of drinking diet soda. When cancer was the result, the results were published as if the two situations were comparable. They were later proved not to be. According to the National Institutes for Health, it is 47 times more likely that an average person will get some form of cancer from the ethyl alcohol in beer than from saccharine.

In regular economics yes. The exception is drugs. The price is set low and the demand is high then the price goes up and the demand is the same. Also you have to remember weed is a agricultural product we would grow it in extremely large amounts the only way price could go up is if subsidies from the gov. were given.

Correction -- the exception is the illegal drug trade. Legal drugs are just as likely to adhere to market forces as any other commodity, mostly because there is a high degree of elasticity in pharmaceuticals. Is Vicodin too expensive? Try Hydrocodone. The basic problem is not with the actual market forces, however, it's with where the government decides to intervene in the market and where it decides not to intervene. With specific drugs, like Marinol or Vicodin, the drug company gets a patent and when it expires, other companies can produce generic versions or their own versions. This would not be the case for marijuana, which is itself not a patentable drug. Now, there may be different strains of marijuana that different companies would produce and patent, but this only increases elasticity. If Northern Lights is too expensive, you could always try Maui Wowie.

Subsidy farming of marijuana is not the only way that the price would go up. I thought this was pretty clear. It would be market forces that dictate the price. The gov't could step in to heavily tax it or subsidize it or whatever, but it would still be subject to the market. I imagine a wild fluctuation in the price of the stuff at first, with a probable precipitous drop (unless the gov't sets prices), but it would eventually level off. Also, don't forget that a great deal of marijuana could be imported.

Did you know that I can legally grow the poppies responsible for opium in my own back yard?

Did you know I can legally eat a poppy seed muffin? Did you know I can make a rope out of hemp?

Thank you for restating my poppy argument. And the plant we get hemp from is a different variety of plant from marijuana of the cannabis family. Hemp cannabis (Industrial hemp) is not useful as a THC source and marijuana cannabis is not useful as a fiber source, so I don't see how that applies.

[TQWcS]

Thank you for restating my poppy argument. And the plant we get hemp from is a different variety of plant from marijuana of the cannabis family. Hemp cannabis (Industrial hemp) is not useful as a THC source and marijuana cannabis is not useful as a fiber source, so I don't see how that applies.

Their are also different varieties of poppy

Law enforcement itself does not pay taxes, but individual peace officers do pay taxes. The difference is that law enforcement gets to raid the drug-runners' stashes, whereas our tax money goes down the rat hole.

I think you're using the word tax incorrectly here. I think what you mean to say is fine. You can't tax an activity unless it is legal. Once you tax it, you are acknowledging the legality of it, because tax implies commerce. Most drug offenders are already being fined. Increase the fines and you will increase the amount of crime necessary to procure the drugs because out-of-pocket expenses remain constant.

I think you are interpreting what I was saying incorrectly. I am saying when a person commits a crime pertaining to marijuana that person(criminal) should have his income taxed(increases income tax for that person).

You could make a why add to that case for just about anything, from tourism in space to Viagra. And while we're on the subject of insurance, don't think for a second that marijuana use would logically raise insurance rates higher than any other "sin" behavior. Life insurance rates, for example, might be comparable with tobacco rates if such things could be proven. All I'm saying is that insurance companies are naturally skittish and will raise rates at the drop of a hat.

No actually in this case i couldn't add anything to this because most things are legal... therefore there effects are probably already seen in your premium. I never said I was for tobacco products I believe they are just as bad if not worse(physically) than weed.

My beef is with the industry convincing people that they may have these disorders. "Generalized anxiety disorder" for example, is a made-up term that was not clinical until the pharmaceutical industry said it was.

Are we to throw out all the research pharmaceutical companies produce? They have some of the best scientists in the world working for them. Terms are not clinical until they appear in the DSMV-IV for insurance reasons.

Psychological addiction is not the same thing as physiological addiction (preferably called dependence). The two work together for cigarettes, for example, because of the motor action of the act of smoking and the feeling of the cigarette & the smoke, and the act of acquiring cigarettes from the store, etc.; and the nicotine that acts as the chemical agent. Here is what the Merck manual says about the two:

If you would have read I also showed how marijuana can produce physical addiction.

I'm going to assume that you were thinking of a different conversation with someone else

No I'll admit I got confused. I should have read your rat statement over. My apologies.

Correction -- the exception is the illegal drug trade.
No I will admit i just got confused. I should have reread your statement about the mice. My apologies.

Regular market forces would not apply because of the addiction rate.

Maybe marijuana would be an exception to agricultural subsidies not sure...

[ST88]

Their are also different varieties of poppy

My point here was not the diversity of gardening options available, my point was that the government inconsistently applies the standard of which plants can be grown and which can't. There are legally prescribable opioid products and there are illegal opioid products despite my ability to freely grow and cultivate the plant that produces opioids. Why would Marinol be legal, but not marijuana?

I think you are interpreting what I was saying incorrectly. I am saying when a person commits a crime pertaining to marijuana that person(criminal) should have his income taxed(increases income tax for that person).

Do you believe this should be true for all offenses, or just drug offenses?

Are we to throw out all the research pharmaceutical companies produce? They have some of the best scientists in the world working for them.

We shouldn't "throw out" any of the corporate research until it can be shown that it is flawed. The fact that the research is "corporate," however, already gives it the stink of conflict of interest. Why do we let the companies who produce the drug fund the studies as to whether or not the drug works? That is the conflict of interest. In my opinion, the government should have an agency that tests or delegates the testing with these same funds collected from all pharmaceutical companies into a general "pharmaceutical testing" fund. That way, no drug company pays for the specific testing of their own drugs, and their influence over the results would be patently illegal.

The fact that these companies have some of the best minds in drug science working for them is very sad. Drug companies research and produce the drugs they can sell. Period. Erectile dysfunction. Arthritis pain. Anxiety disorders. Digestive problems. Allergies. These are the drug items that sell, and these are the ones that get researched and produced. There are a few companies, like Novo-Nordisk (not an American company) that specialize in diabetes research. It scares me that diabetes is now a profitable disease, because most diabetes cases are directly related to behavior.

The drugs that are researched and produced for serious diseases are largely subsidized by the government: AIDS, Sickle Cell Anemia, Malaria & other tropical infections, Multiple Sclerosis, etc. Pharmaceutical companies make no attempt to conceal that producing drugs for these conditions is a money-losing proposition.

If you would have read I also showed how marijuana can produce physical addiction.

Actually, you described how Marinol could be physically addictive. This in itself is untrue because the addiction information on that little legally mandated disclaimer sheet does not distinguish between law enforcement's definition of "marijuana addiction" and the psychological addiction syndromes associated with any mood altering substance. Unimed, the maker of Marinol has said itself that Marinol is not addictive. In 1999, it was reclassified as a Schedule III drug instead of a Schedule II drug because of its "lower abuse potential" based on studies done on real-world human subjects in health clinics. Among the findings:

-- There is no evidence of Marinol substance abuse or diversion (transferring from legal to illegal channels)
-- Marinol use remains within the therapeutic dosage range over time
-- Cannabis-dependent populations have demonstrated no interest in abuse of Marinol
-- Based on information gathered from law enforcement officials in major cities throughout the United States, there is no street market for Marinol and no evidence of any diversion of Marinol for sale as a street drug
-- Marinol does not provide effects that are considered desirable in a drug of abuse
HIV And Cancer Patients Not Abusing THC-Derived Drug, Researchers Say

Regular market forces would not apply because of the addiction rate.

"Addiction" as it applies to marijuana would not even approach a scenario like the one you describe. Caffeine is addictive -- I know, because I am addicted to it myself. If I don't have my coffee in the morning, by the afternoon I will get physical symptoms, like headaches, flashing lights, Reynaud's phenomenon, heart palpitations, etc. Coffee has not experienced the long-term economic addiction trend that other -- illegal -- addictive substances have. My contention here is that this is primarily because it is legal. Coffee is subject to market forces because it is a market product.

Generally speaking, I would guess that the reason Marijuana is the least expensive of the illegal drugs available is because of lower risk in movement and ease of use. Cocaine must be imported -- the coca plant does not grow in the U.S. Heroin must be processed, necessitating equipment and supplies. Other drugs, like barbituates and crystal meth must be chemically produced, necessitating large amounts of chemicals. Marijuana requires virtually nothing except for the acquisition of the seeds, and the cultivation of the plant itself. The leaves are dried and BAM! you have MJ. You don't even need to dry the leaves for baking. I say all this in order to show that the costs of illegal drugs are not exclusively related to supply and demand, but also to how dangerous they are to produce in terms of legal enforcement. Smugglers can be caught, lab equipment can be traced, and chemicals can be detected. But marijuana can be used undetected (if not smoked) unless law enforcement is specifically looking for it (or accidentally finds it in connection with some other offense).

[TQWcS]

Why do we let the companies who produce the drug fund the studies as to whether or not the drug works? That is the conflict of interest. In my opinion, the government should have an agency that tests or delegates the testing with these same funds collected from all pharmaceutical companies into a general "pharmaceutical testing" fund.

They say it works then the FDA studies it. Why would a drug company spend billions on a drug that won't sell? Plus you are leaving out a whole bunch of other drugs that medical companies study and produce.

My point here was not the diversity of gardening options available, my point was that the government inconsistently applies the standard of which plants can be grown and which can't.

I understood your point I was just playing with yuh. Like you said marijuna doesn't have to be processed heroine does.

Do you believe this should be true for all offenses, or just drug offenses?

Depends on the crime. Some people just don't belong in society and should be jailed because they are a harm to others. The others I believe should not be a burden on society but should contribute more to it because they violated our rules. If this doens't stop them maybe we could have a 3 strikes and your out deal or something.

What good will marijuana bring to our country and don't say economic prosperity I don't believe it would have a profound effect on our economy. The thing that concerns me most about marijuana is the amotivational syndrome that comes with smoking. This disorder is characterized by apathy, loss of effectiveness, and diminished capacity or
willingness to carry out complex, long-term plans, endure frustration,
concentrate for long periods, follow routines, or successfully master
new material. Verbal facility is often impaired both in speaking and
writing. Some individuals exhibit greater introversion, become totally
involved with the present at the expense of future goals and
demonstrate a strong tendency toward regressive, childlike, magical
thinking.

Actually, you described how Marinol could be physically addictive.

When someone smokes marijuana, THC overstimulates the cannabinoid receptors, leading to a disruption of the endogenous cannabinoids' normal control. This overstimulation produces the intoxication experienced by marijuana smokers. Over time, it may degrade some cannabinoid receptors, possibly producing permanent adverse effects and contributing to addiction and risk for a withdrawal syndrome.

Depression, anxiety, and personality disturbances are all associated with marijuana use. Research clearly demonstrates that marijuana use has the potential to cause problems in daily life or make a person's existing problems worse. Because marijuana compromises the ability to learn and remember information, the more a person uses marijuana the more he or she is likely to fall behind in accumulating intellectual, job, or social skills. Moreover, research has shown that marijuana's adverse impact on memory and learning can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off. One would suspect since the person has already tried to self medicate themselves with marijuana then may try to medicate the aformentioned problems with other illegal drugs.

[mrmufin]

The most alarming correlation is that people who smoke pot are far more likely to take up smoking tobacco, which is truly bad stuff.

Funny you should mention that... I smoked pot for a few years before I was a regular tobacco smoker. When I saw my doctor last August, she read me the riot act, up one side, down the other about the evils of tobacco and how smoking cigarettes is one of the absolute worst things I could do to myself, yada-yada-yada. I had my physical in October ago and my doctor asked me if I was still using tobacco. I told her that I haven't had a cigarette since early September, but I was going to start up again as soon as cigarettes return to <= $2/pack. After commending me on quitting, she said that she hopes cigarettes go up to $10/pack if that's what it would take for me to not use tobacco.

She also asked if I used any drugs. I told her that I smoke marijuana, that I've been doing so on as many days as not for about twenty years, and that I will likely continue to do so. She didn't flinch or hand me a pamphlet or give me lecture or warn me of the evils of marijuana. As a matter of fact. I've always been candid about my pot consumption with any doctor that I've seen, if asked, and I've never been advised to quit...

I drink very rarely (maybe two or three drinks per year), I'm mindful of my diet, rest, and exercise regularly. I don't drive or operate heavy machinery after smoking pot and don't experience any negative or ill effects when I don't smoke pot. I just like the effect. Though I do get a craving for a cigarette after a few hits off a joint...

Regards,
mrmufin

[Piper Plexed]

I drink very rarely (maybe two or three drinks per year), I'm mindful of my diet, rest, and exercise regularly. I don't drive or operate heavy machinery after smoking pot and don't experience any negative or ill effects when I don't smoke pot. I just like the effect. Though I do get a craving for a cigarette after a few hits off a joint...

Now funny you should mention that I smoked some pot in HS and well it grew old quickly, I am a drinker. Now my hubby on the other hand has always been a pot smoker more before family than later (treats himself to a long walk in the woods alone every once in a blue moon) and he has never been a drinker. Now if ya ask me I would say that drinking causes many more ill effects than pot ever has so out of the two I would say his vice is way easier on the body than mine is.

[mrmufin]

A correlation is one thing, while demonstrable causation is something else. Some may argue that a correlation without demonstrable causation is but a coincidence... So unless you're able to show the mechanics of how marijuana use leads to use of other drugs, the gateway drug bit remains unconvincing and unscientific.

[....]When someone smokes marijuana, THC overstimulates the cannabinoid receptors, leading to a disruption of the endogenous cannabinoids' normal control. This overstimulation produces the intoxication experienced by marijuana smokers. Over time, it may degrade some cannabinoid receptors, possibly producing permanent adverse effects and contributing to addiction and risk for a withdrawal syndrome.

I do not dispute the effect of marijuana on the user, nor do I find it implausible that some marijuana users may develop a really strong hankerin' for the herb. The same can be said for users of alcohol, caffeine, chocolate, cocaine, etc. This does not establish any causal relationship between marijuana use and use of other drugs.

Depression, anxiety, and personality disturbances are all associated with marijuana use. Research clearly demonstrates that marijuana use has the potential to cause problems in daily life or make a person's existing problems worse.

Depression, anxiety, personality disturbances, and exacerbation of preexisting conditions can also be associated with use of alcohol. Should alcohol be made illegal?

Because marijuana compromises the ability to learn and remember information, the more a person uses marijuana the more he or she is likely to fall behind in accumulating intellectual, job, or social skills.

Things other than marijuana --and perfectly legal things, at that-- can compromise intellectual, professional and social skills. Alcohol, stress, poor diet, insufficient sleep can all have similar effects. Still no causal relationship between marijuana use and use of other drugs is established...

Moreover, research has shown that marijuana's adverse impact on memory and learning can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suspect that once the acute effects of marijuana wear off, the residual impact on memory and learning are no more significant than the effects of a poor nights sleep, job stress, etc. I make my statements as a result of twenty years of personal experience, as well as the casual observation of others. Nor would these effects establish a causal relationship between marijuana use and the use of other drugs...

One would suspect since the person has already tried to self medicate themselves with marijuana then may try to medicate the aformentioned problems with other illegal drugs.

Ahhh... and that a person has already tried to self-medicate with any drug may be indicative of a personality or psychological trait that existed prior to using marijuana. So still, no causal relationship between marijuana use and the use of other drugs.

I suspect the correlation between smoking pot and using other drugs starts to break down, due to the high number of us who have smoked pot and never had any desire to use heroin.

There is a high number of people that have drank beer and not become addicted I guess I should use this logic and admit that alcohol is not addictive.

My response was not about the possibility of marijuana users becoming addicted to marijuana. Nor was it about alcohol users becoming addicted to alcohol. I was interested in some support for the gateway drug hypothesis that you presented. I do not dispute that a large percentage of, say, heroin users probably used marijuana prior to using heroin. Nor would I find it implausible that a majority of heroin users used alcohol prior to using heroin. Though the information that you presented about how a user is affected by marijuana was interesting and appreciated, it does not establish a causal relationship between marijuana use and the use of any other specific drug. A causal relationship between marijuana use and, say, red eyes, or dry mouth, or drowsiness, or dulled response time is pretty easy to establish. But you have not established that someone who uses marijuana has a greater propensity to use other drugs because of earlier marijuana use. Without a causal relationship established, the gateway drug hypothesis is inconclusive.

At the end of the day, a correlation devoid of causation is a fancy way of saying coincidence. Besides, you speak like nothing good can be associated with the use of marijuana...

That a particular substance may have some negative consequences does not in and of itself mean that persons should be prohibited from the peaceful, intentional use of a substance. I am quite a firm believer in individual choice and personal responsibility. Prohibition of select substances comes with a variety of negative consequences, too.

Regards,
mrmufin

[TQWcS]

That a particular substance may have some negative consequences does not in and of itself mean that persons should be prohibited from the peaceful, intentional use of a substance. I am quite a firm believer in individual choice and personal responsibility. Prohibition of select substances comes with a variety of negative consequences, too.

Then I suppose the question is, do the negative outweigh the good consequences of prohibiting the drug. You could say that prohibiting alcohol during the 20's gave way to violence and organized crime. However, since it was made legal the number of people killed by drunk driving accidents would outweigh the people killed as a result of prohibition. I suspect the same would happen with legalizing pot. The more people you have smoking it the more candidates you have that think they are fine to drive while under the influence. I'll have to admit if marijuana is used responsibly and only occasionally it would be fine with me. I'm just worried about all the idiots out there(like me roommate).

[mrmufin]

The more people you have smoking it the more candidates you have that think they are fine to drive while under the influence.

I wouldn't be so sure that the legality of pot would have a major impact on the number of people DUI. That is, I think that marijuana is generally pretty easy to find and those who are going to smoke it are likely to do so regardless of its legal status. Legality may make pot more convenient, but there are some folks who are going to get tuned up on something --anything-- and if it isn't pot, it may be alcohol or extacy, whatever, and there are some who are quite selective. They use a particular intoxicant to the exclusion of others, and without it, they stay sober. I definitley fall into the latter category: if I don't have pot, I don't drink instead. On the other hand, I don't drive intoxicated in any circumstance. Point is, legality generally has more to do with punishment and consequences than actual availability and the net number of persons doing things intoxicated.

I'll have to admit if marijuana is used responsibly and only occasionally it would be fine with me. I'm just worried about all the idiots out there(like me roommate).

Your concern is probably quite valid. Idiots can be dangerous with or without pot, or alcohol, or caffeine... Nevertheless, I'd suggest you be very forthright with your roommate about your concerns. Some folks just go through phases, too. I was once young and indestructable and wouldn't think twice about roaring down the highway at the speed limit +25 MPH while smoking a J and playing the air guitar. The more I was convinced --by any means-- that what I was doing was just plain stupid, the less I did it. Fortunately, I learned my lessons without anybody getting hurt. The fact is, intoxicating substances do affect response times and perceptions, otherwise nobody would use 'em. Responsible behavior should be stressed at all times, regardless of legality.

Regards,
mrmufin