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

[TQWcS]

Should marijuana be legal.

[TQWcS]

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.

Does this qualify you as one of those idiots I mentioned earlier(I'm just joking don't want a warning.) ...

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.

It's not convenience it is the lower price. I discussed this topic earlier. Some people don't like the taste of ribs and if ribs were the only legal meat they wouldn't eat meat. Now if steak was made legal they may have a taste for that. In other words the other legal drugs may just not be their bag.

[Lotan]

Although it's been a long time since I've cared to use marijuana, I don't mind if the government stays out of my business, or that of other consenting adults in the privacy of their homes. Marijuana is a tool, and should be treated with respect. It's only harmful when used irresponsibly.

It has been suggested that Jesus may have used marijuana for its medicinal properties.

[TQWcS]

Although it's been a long time since I've cared to use marijuana, I don't mind if the government stays out of my business, or that of other consenting adults in the privacy of their homes. Marijuana is a tool, and should be treated with respect. It's only harmful when used irresponsibly.

Thats what I said in my last post. Also as mrmufin pointed out it takes some people a little while to learn to be responsible.

[ST88]

They say it works then the FDA studies it. Why would a drug company spend billions on a drug that won't sell?

This is precisely my point. We leave the health care industry to capitalism so they can concentrate on the drugs that will sell, and that doesn't include a lot of potentially curable diseases that don't maintain enough of an economy of scale to make research into the drug that might cure it, feasible. Government must step in in those cases.

Plus you are leaving out a whole bunch of other drugs that medical companies study and produce.

True. I was exaggerating a little for effect. But I don't think you can deny that the types of drugs I listed get the greatest amount of funding behind them. Viagra was approved by the FDA in record time.

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.

I can't dispute any of these effects of marijuana. It's true that these effects are produced by using it. Religion also produces these effects, as does overly processed food, television shows, and Chekhov plays. But I don't think you can argue against legalization because it wouldn't produce a collective good for society. Our laws are based on rights to everything that we don't specifically prohibit. Traffic law (in California, at least) says that you can make a U-turn anywhere on any road unless there is a sign saying you can't (shan't?). No demonstrable good need be produced in order to make a case for legalization.

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'd like to point out that most drugs, like opiates, nicotine, and alcohol, work by preventing the re-uptake of dopamine, the neurotransmitter responsible for feelings of pleasure. This means that brain cells don't know when to stop producing dopamine, creating a surplus, and causing a euphoric state. Marijuana does not affect dopamine levels. In fact, there are receptors in the brain specifically designed to receive cannabinoids like THC and its metabolites. This brings up a different question, why do you suppose there are cannabinoid receptors in the brain? The body produces its own cannabinoids. Receptors can be found in certain areas of the brain, like the hippocampus and cerebral cortex. There are also these receptors throughout the body. Women have cannabinoid receptors in their uteruses, for example. The body expects a cannabinoid to be produced -- in the body's case, it's called anandamide. Anandamide breaks down much more quickly than does THC, which explains why it does not collect in tissue, whereas THC does. However, the regulatory mechanisms for when anadamide is produced is in no way affected by the amount of THC present. The only thing that is affected is the cannabinoid receptor. Now, it's true that these pathways are strengthened over time, leading to permanent memory difficulties. But "over time" in this case is analagous to cirrhosis in alcoholism or emphysema in smoking; in other words, many years of heavy use.

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.

A) This is clearly wrong. That there is a correlation between depression and personality disturbances does not mean that it has ever been shown that marijuana causes these disturbances. I mean, MJ is illegal for God's sake. What kind of a state would you expect regular users (who get caught) to be in? The fact is, people who are in this kind of personality state seek out "self-medication" as you put it, and if MJ is available, then that's what they'll use.
B) These symptoms, even if caused by MJ are not, in and of themselves, reasons for making a substance illegal. By this logic, we should ban high school.

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.

Again, this is not a viable argument for making something illegal. We make drugs illegal because they produce severe dependency, violent behavior, and/or cause people to lose all touch with reality. Like some religious cults. Marijuana does none of these things. It is not addictive, it does not make people violent (it is a mellowing agent, like ketchup [let me know if you get that joke]), and, though it is a psychoactive substance, you do not lose touch with yourself like you would with PCP or MDMA.

Marijuana is illegal for only one reason -- the perception by law enforcement of the people who use it. It was originally banned in the 1930s because the Federal Bureau of Narcotics managed to convince Congress that "hashish" was a drug that caused people to become violent assassins.
Michael Pollan, in The Botany of Desire wrote about a story of 11th century Arabia:

Hassan [the master of assassins] would begin his initiation of new recruits by giving them so much hashish that they passed out. Hours later, the [recruits] would awaken to find themselves in this midst of a most beautiful palace garden... Scattered through this paradise, lying on the ground in pools of blood, are severed heads -- actually actors buried to their necks. The heads speak, telling the men of the afterlife and what they will have to do if they hope ever to return to this paradise.

The story was corrupted by the time Marco Polo retold it, so that the hashish was now directly responsible for the violence of the assassins.

This story was told by Westerners about Middle- and Near-Easterners so often that it became the reason for the ban. It was part of the xenophobia and isolationist-leaning government of the 1930s. It has since become associated with such American-hating groups as musicians, liberals, college professors, counter-culture followers, and Californians. In my opinion there is no reason for it to be illegal other than the fact that it is already illegal. It is an arbitrary law -- a law for its own sake.

[TQWcS]

It is an arbitrary law -- a law for its own sake.

Well even if it is a law for it's own sake(which I believe it is not) and a majority of America wants it illegal, and the consequences would not necessarily be good then I believe we should maintain the status quo.

This is precisely my point. We leave the health care industry to capitalism so they can concentrate on the drugs that will sell, and that doesn't include a lot of potentially curable diseases that don't maintain enough of an economy of scale to make research into the drug that might cure it, feasible. Government must step in in those cases.

It is more efficient this way. Plus viagra was approved in record time because it had already been researched for a long time. It was originally a heart medication but when the moved to human subjects they noticed a little side effect. We don't need socialized medicine they did it in Canada and no one wants to be a doctor now.

I'd like to point out that most drugs, like opiates, nicotine, and alcohol, work by preventing the re-uptake of dopamine, the neurotransmitter responsible for feelings of pleasure. This means that brain cells don't know when to stop producing dopamine, creating a surplus, and causing a euphoric state. Marijuana does not affect dopamine levels. In fact, there are receptors in the brain specifically designed to receive cannabinoids like THC and its metabolites. This brings up a different question, why do you suppose there are cannabinoid receptors in the brain? The body produces its own cannabinoids. Receptors can be found in certain areas of the brain, like the hippocampus and cerebral cortex. There are also these receptors throughout the body. Women have cannabinoid receptors in their uteruses, for example. The body expects a cannabinoid to be produced -- in the body's case, it's called anandamide. Anandamide breaks down much more quickly than does THC, which explains why it does not collect in tissue, whereas THC does. However, the regulatory mechanisms for when anadamide is produced is in no way affected by the amount of THC present. The only thing that is affected is the cannabinoid receptor. Now, it's true that these pathways are strengthened over time, leading to permanent memory difficulties. But "over time" in this case is analagous to cirrhosis in alcoholism or emphysema in smoking; in other words, many years of heavy use.

Correct me if I am wrong. Cocaine triggers Neurons in the brain to release all of the dopamine within, after this the neurons produce more dopamine receptors. The lowered dopamine along with the added dopamine receptors contributes to the feeling of needing the drug and the corresponding crash. This is why you will never have the same high after using cocaine the first time. Just because a chemical is produced by the body does not mean it is good for you. Uric acid is produced by the body and I believe it would be bad to drink a bunch of it. All drugs if used chronically are going to produce problems and that is what I am against, MORE PROBLEMS(smoking marijuana long enough would also produce emphysema along with other side effects produced by inhaling tar)!!!

[TQWcS]

bah submitted twice.

[ST88]

Correct me if I am wrong. Cocaine triggers Neurons in the brain to release all of the dopamine within, after this the neurons produce more dopamine receptors. The lowered dopamine along with the added dopamine receptors contributes to the feeling of needing the drug and the corresponding crash. This is why you will never have the same high after using cocaine the first time.

Not exactly. Cocaine blocks dopamine transporters (agonists), which direct the dopamine to the correct location. Because the dopamine does not reach the intended target, the feedback mechanism for stopping dopamine production (antagonists) is not activated, so more dopamine is produced, and it floats around, going to places it was never intended to go.

These other places, now saturated with dopamine, do produce dopamine antagonists because the cocaine has not reached every part of the brain all at once. These antagonists do their job very effectively, lowering the amount of dopamine in the brain. However, because the cocaine is still blocking the feedback mechanism, the user does not get the emotional "satisfaction" that normally follows feelings of pleasure. Further, the huge accumulation of dopamine produces such a high, that other "natural" highs will no longer be as pleasurable as they once were, and only cocaine will produce that feeling. It has also been postulated that the dopamine pathway is not the only one involved.

It has also been shown that after the self-reported rush of the cocaine high has diminished, continuous IV infusion of cocaine will often induce negative feelings such as dysphoria, anxiety, and paranoia, which are mixed with positive feelings of well being (Kumor et al. 1989). This tells us that even with a steady flow of cocaine to the brain, a cocaine user will still be subject to the negative effects of the drug use, because his dopamine levels will drop back to normal even though the brain is saturated with cocaine. So, the constant abuse of, and addiction to cocaine are characterized by a state in which the negative dysphoric effects are experienced regularly due to the brains compensatory mechanisms for maintaining normal dopamine levels. Since subjects still experience negative effects with normal dopamine levels (Kumor et al. 1989), this leads to the theory that cocaine must also exert its effects (especially the aversive effects) through mechanisms other than the dopamine system.
http://www.macalester.edu/~psych/whatha ... caine.html

Though no additional dopamine receptors are created, it takes more dopamine to trigger the intended effect because of the way the existing receptors get "used to" the increased amount.

All drugs if used chronically are going to produce problems and that is what I am against, MORE PROBLEMS(smoking marijuana long enough would also produce emphysema along with other side effects produced by inhaling tar)!!!

Chronically and heavily. I, too, dislike the idea of smoked marijuana, and I don't like the smell either. I sometimes would like to ban cigarettes just because it's disgusting to have the smoke around all the time, around everything, on everything. In California, smoking is illegal in many places, like restaurants, office buildings, and some beaches. It is very difficult to go anywhere else in the country -- or the world -- because of the relative thickness of the smoke that is tolerated in public and private buildings.

However, smoking is a choice of the smoker. It should only be regulated where the harm conflicts with my personal space. Marijuana is not nearly as addictive (physically or psychologically) as tobacco, and it need not produce the same public effect in order to be effective.

On the argument of not producing more harm: you can't ban something because it would produce aggregate harm if that harm is the same as a current harm. You can only ban it if the harm is different from something currently not banned. This is true because of precedents in law. Thus the tobacco and alcohol argument.

[ST88]

Just because a chemical is produced by the body does not mean it is good for you. Uric acid is produced by the body and I believe it would be bad to drink a bunch of it.

The Uric acid argument doesn't work because Urea was never meant to be ingested in that end of the digestive system. Cannabinoids enter the bloodstream via the body and via the ingestion of cannabinoid-rich materials, so the analogy doesn't work. An analagous situation would be to inject Uric acid directly into the bladder, where it would be quite at home -- for a time.

[TQWcS]

On the argument of not producing more harm: you can't ban something because it would produce aggregate harm if that harm is the same as a current harm. You can only ban it if the harm is different from something currently not banned. This is true because of precedents in law. Thus the tobacco and alcohol argument.

Is that a fact? I believe it already is banned... I am saying lets keep it that way.

The Uric acid argument doesn't work because Urea was never meant to be ingested in that end of the digestive system. Cannabinoids enter the bloodstream via the body and via the ingestion of cannabinoid-rich materials, so the analogy doesn't work. An analagous situation would be to inject Uric acid directly into the bladder, where it would be quite at home -- for a time.

What about Na+ too much of it and it can be harmful. My point is that cannabinoids were never supposed to be in the body at that high of a level.

Chronically and heavily. I, too, dislike the idea of smoked marijuana, and I don't like the smell either.

Well it is good that we actually agree on something .
About the smell, my roommate smokes it 3 times a day in our dorm room, horrible stench.

[ST88]

On the argument of not producing more harm: you can't ban something because it would produce aggregate harm if that harm is the same as a current harm. You can only ban it if the harm is different from something currently not banned. This is true because of precedents in law. Thus the tobacco and alcohol argument.

Is that a fact? I believe it already is banned... I am saying lets keep it that way.

Yes, and I am saying that it was banned for illegitimate reasons in the first place. The current laws against it are contradictory, mainly because the analogous substances producing the legal contradictions -- tobacco and alcohol -- are home-grown industries. Marijuana at the time it was first banned was seen as a foreign invader with unknown and potentially scary properties. The law was ahead of the science.

What about Na+ too much of it and it can be harmful. My point is that cannabinoids were never supposed to be in the body at that high of a level.

This is an excellent point. The brain even has receptors for opiates. However, it is not possible to OD on cannabinoids the way it is with other substances because of the way they are absorbed and the location of the receptors. I.e., opiate receptors are located in parts of the brain that control breathing and heart rate. Cannabinoid receptors are located in parts of the brain that control memory and emotion. Even Na+ molality, though subject to body regulation, can be fatal because it gets spread around the body indiscriminately. It is also possible to OD on Vitamin A, and the recent study about mega-doses of Vitamin E are scary, too. But cannabinoids do not overwhelm the body like cocaine or heroin -- or Vitamin A -- does. THC does not produce a dysfunction of the feedback mechanism to decrease its power, instead, it fulfills its role as a neurotransmitter substitute and goes on its merry way. It gets stored in fatty tissues if there is too great of a concentration, unlike the dopamine example, where it leaks to other parts of the brain. Because the body already has a safety mechanism for taking care of excess cannabinoids, but not excess opiates (or NA+), the analogy still doesn't work.