• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W:91]

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Really? Is that when you read where I was lying? ROFLMAO

Oops, never lied. But that's the attack you used to deflect anyway.

My position is completely supported. If you would like clarification, please just ask.

Just like I ask that you support your claim. *crickets*

that was done with the first post, apparently it is over your reading level. crickets
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Sorry bud.. Your ignorance is GLARING. Hair samples only detect non-psychoactive residues and requires 7-10 days AFTER you smoked to show up. If you smoke just 1 joint it will not be in your hair at the time being pulled over, period. That being said it's like any other system. With Alcohol if you weigh 180 pounds.. you can have 4 beers in 1 hour and not be above the legal limit in theory. You will be impaired but not arrested. Same with THC. A few states have "guidelines" or laws which state between 2ng/ml - 8ng/ml is considered "Drugged and Driving" (like Drunk Driving). So if you smoke and fall below those limits it's not a DUI.

False, I know two people that haven't seen their families now for about 12 years because some dumbass smoked a joint, walked into work and killed both of them while operating a large piece of machinery. I know liberals enjoy other people's deaths when they are expressing their "freedoms".
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

False, I know two people that haven't seen their families now for about 12 years because some dumbass smoked a joint, walked into work and killed both of them while operating a large piece of machinery. I know liberals enjoy other people's deaths when they are expressing their "freedoms".

Good for you. I know a two families who lost family members to a drunken UPS driver. But hey, tit for tat. But I am not liberal, I am libertarian. You may want to look up that word cause you aren't that.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Good for you. I know a two families who lost family members to a drunken UPS driver. But hey, tit for tat. But I am not liberal, I am libertarian. You may want to look up that word cause you aren't that.

more so than you
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Once again, what you're describing rocketman is an action someone undertaken. The ACTION is illegal. The PERSON making the CHOICE to undertake that action is guilty. What you described is no more reason to ban marijuana because it impaired his judgement than it is to ban a gun because it allowed someone to kill someone in a shooting. It's hillarious watching you and another poster argue back and forth over whose got hte larger libetrtarian balls...as yo'ure sitting here pushing for a majority of individuals who would be law abiding citizens having their ability to take actions directly affecting only themselves hampered by Big Government simply because a minority of people will use it in conjunction with criminal activity.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

It causes brain damage in children. It does this by blocking connections as the brain continues to grow.

Adolescent pot use leaves lasting mental deficits; Developing brain susceptible to lasting damage from exposure to marijuana
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/27/health/health-teen-pot/index.html]Pot smoking may leave mark on teen brains

Heavy marijuana use may damage developing brain in teens, young adults

You'll note that not one of those is from a government source.

Smoking ANYTHING will damage lungs. Doesn't matter if its MJ, Tobacco, or seaweed (a very nutritous marine plant). Lungs are not designed to handle smoke period. Thats why firemen wear oxygen tanks in burning buildings. The addition of carcinigens that is in MJ and tobacco makes this damage even worse. As for it causing "less damage". Common sense question here....if smoked MJ has 300 more deadly carcinigens than tobacco then how can it cause less damage?

There isn't one single real bonafide doctor that will prescribe marijuana in joint form. They all agree that it is harmful if smoked. That is why doctors, when prescribing marijuana, will precribe it in either pill form or in an inhaler where it is sprayed into the body in mist form. Not smoked. This is something that a lot of pro-marijuana folks love to ignore and skip over when they make the type of arguement that you just made here.

First, there are not 300 deadly carcinogens in marijuana, period. There's not even one deadly carcinogen in marijuana. If there were, we would be stacking bodies to the roof like we are with smokers, and there would be no shortage of studies and statistics showing this is true. The DEA would be screaming the statistics from the rooftops. As of now, the body count for marijuana still sits around zero.

Second, a doctor doesn't prescribe the form of cannabis, he prescribes the cannabis and you can decide how to consume it yourself. You could smoke it, vaporize it, bake it, eat a lollipop, etc. etc. It doesn't have to be smoked.

more so than you

Ha! You want the government to lock people in cages for consuming a plant. You are the furthest thing from a libertarian, stop embarrassing us by wearing that lean.
 
Last edited:
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana


I would have used this one...but yours had more explanation.

Platform | Libertarian Party

1.2 Personal Privacy

Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

First, there are not 300 deadly carcinogens in marijuana, period. There's not even one deadly carcinogen in marijuana. If there were, we would be stacking bodies to the roof like we are with smokers, and there would be no shortage of studies and statistics showing this is true. The DEA would be screaming the statistics from the rooftops. As of now, the body count for marijuana still sits around zero.

Pot Smoke: Less Carcinogenic Than Tobacco?

Oct. 17, 2005 -- Although tobacco smoke and marijuana smoke are chemically very similar, a new report argues that their cancer-causing effects may be very different.

Both tobacco and cannabis smoke contain the same cancer-causing compounds (carcinogens). Depending on what part of the plant is smoked, marijuana can contain more of these harmful ingredients

I may have been wrong about the 300. But you are wrong in that it doesn't have any deadly carcinogens.

Second, a doctor doesn't prescribe the form of cannabis, he prescribes the cannabis and you can decide how to consume it yourself. You could smoke it, vaporize it, bake it, eat a lollipop, etc. etc. It doesn't have to be smoked.

A doctor letting the patient decide how to take medicine so freely? Remind me not to go to your doctor! A real doctor might let you choose the brand, but not the method of delivery unless both methods were equally as good. It is quite evident that a vaporizer would be a much healthier way of getting your high as you don't get the same chemicals that that are in MJ as in Tobacco. Such as tar, cyanide etc etc.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Pot Smoke: Less Carcinogenic Than Tobacco?



I may have been wrong about the 300. But you are wrong in that it doesn't have any deadly carcinogens.



A doctor letting the patient decide how to take medicine so freely? Remind me not to go to your doctor! A real doctor might let you choose the brand, but not the method of delivery unless both methods were equally as good. It is quite evident that a vaporizer would be a much healthier way of getting your high as you don't get the same chemicals that that are in MJ as in Tobacco. Such as tar, cyanide etc etc.

It says harmful, not deadly, and that's only if it's smoked. You've yet to produce any evidence whatsoever that anyone in the history of mankind has ever gotten cancer from marijuana, much less more than tobacco. Don't you think we would be seeing a LOT of government sponsored studies showing how so many potsmokers are dying? Where is all that?
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana


and damn just a few lines in "does not infringe on another" exactly what I posted early in this thread. Your failure to read is not on me, but on you. Are you sure you aren't a progressive?:shock:
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

and damn just a few lines in "does not infringe on another" exactly what I posted early in this thread. Your failure to read is not on me, but on you. Are you sure you aren't a progressive?:shock:

And nobody else is disagreeing with you. we've all stated it's a CRIME and should be treated as a CRIME if you harm someone. All we are doing is pointing out the reason why your so uptight about it is you are to ignorant to see legal drugs cause the same issues. That smoking pot at home should be your choice but once you drive under the influence it should be a crime. You are just too.... I should stop I don't want another infraction because someone is an ........
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

And nobody else is disagreeing with you. we've all stated it's a CRIME and should be treated as a CRIME if you harm someone. All we are doing is pointing out the reason why your so uptight about it is you are to ignorant to see legal drugs cause the same issues. That smoking pot at home should be your choice but once you drive under the influence it should be a crime. You are just too.... I should stop I don't want another infraction because someone is an ........

because that is crap. I can take an Allegra D and I am not going to kill the laborer on the forklift. Many of the other prescribed drugs you mention tell you to keep your ass at home and not behind the wheel of car, if you ignore, you could go to jail. Again apples and oranges.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Moderator's Warning:
Civility!
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

because that is crap. I can take an Allegra D and I am not going to kill the laborer on the forklift. Many of the other prescribed drugs you mention tell you to keep your ass at home and not behind the wheel of car, if you ignore, you could go to jail. Again apples and oranges.

Oh, because it tells you means people listen? Get real. Allegra D is an over the counter medication which actually does have side effects with low risk so no warnings are given. Allegra D is also a stimulant which is a major difference so apples and oranges on your part not mine. Alcohol a LEGAL over the counter drug which causes the same type effects on the body as THC. That would be apples to apples. But you can't win that argument so you have to move the goal posts to an over the counter med (Allegra D) which is stimulant and not a depressant. Zyrtec, Claritin or Benadryl are depressants which have the same effects as Alcohol/THC and are all SOLD over the counter.

Just admit you are wrong.. I don't have the time to waste arguing with a parrot who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Moderator's Warning:
Civility!
What is this newfangled concept?
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

What is this newfangled concept?


Moderator's Warning:
Don't address mod boxes in thread please... bad form don't you know, old chap.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

that was done with the first post, apparently it is over your reading level. crickets

No, it was not. You claimed texting was not relevant. It is a parallel example showing that something being legal does not infringe on your rights *until* they drive distracted. Your objection to legalizing pot was that it would infringe on your rights..
 
Last edited:
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

It says harmful, not deadly, and that's only if it's smoked. You've yet to produce any evidence whatsoever that anyone in the history of mankind has ever gotten cancer from marijuana, much less more than tobacco. Don't you think we would be seeing a LOT of government sponsored studies showing how so many potsmokers are dying? Where is all that?

Umm..where did I say that people have gotten cancer from MJ...much less more than tobacco? You seem to be projecting your own thoughts into what I am saying. I started out my conversation in this thread talking about how MJ can affect adolescents (specifically IQ). Not once did I mention cancer. Try keeping to the context of what I am talking about k?

As for the deadly carcenigens that I mentioned. The ones listed that you ignore ARE deadly. HOWEVER, if you had read the link more you would know that those same carcenigens are inhibited by the THC. But just because they are inhibited does not mean that they are not there.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Umm..where did I say that people have gotten cancer from MJ...much less more than tobacco? You seem to be projecting your own thoughts into what I am saying. I started out my conversation in this thread talking about how MJ can affect adolescents (specifically IQ). Not once did I mention cancer. Try keeping to the context of what I am talking about k?

As for the deadly carcenigens that I mentioned. The ones listed that you ignore ARE deadly. HOWEVER, if you had read the link more you would know that those same carcenigens are inhibited by the THC. But just because they are inhibited does not mean that they are not there.

LOL, what the hell do you think we're talking about with deadly carcinogens? We're talking about cancer, which MJ has never once been proven to cause. Are you trying to claim these 'deadly' carcinogens kill you in another way? Maybe they cut your brake lines or sneak up behind you with piano wire?

Produce evidence! If it's truly deadly, let's see the body count.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Man...all this talk about marijuana...like it's some big deal.

Discussing marijuana, within the context of the entire illegal drug problem; is like firefighters talking about how to put out a fire in a closet while the whole house is burning.

Marijuana is almost NOTHING. It's just another escape from life that humans use; along with harder drug use, eating too much, eating crappy food, drinking too much, smoking too much, taking too many prescription drugs, working too hard, pornography addiction.........they are all bad for you(in different ways) in sufficient quantities.

And they are all no one else's direct business if sane individual's choose to indulge in ANY of them.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

LOL, what the hell do you think we're talking about with deadly carcinogens? We're talking about cancer, which MJ has never once been proven to cause. Are you trying to claim these 'deadly' carcinogens kill you in another way? Maybe they cut your brake lines or sneak up behind you with piano wire?

Produce evidence! If it's truly deadly, let's see the body count.

Do you deny that cyanide is deadly? Because MJ has it in it, along with others. Do you know what the THC in MJ does to those carcinigens? Despite my having already told you, apparently not. I've already provided you with links that explain this already. But you refuse to acknowledge any of it.

BTW..here is another site explaining it also...

Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic (don't let the title fool you. You need to actually read the article to understand the title)

Smoke from tobacco and cannabis contains many of the same carcinogens and tumor promoters [20,21]. However, cannabis and tobacco have additional pharmacological activities, both receptor-dependent and independent, that result in different biological endpoints. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons found in smoke are pro-carcinogens that are converted to carcinogens by the enzymatic activity of the cytochrome P4501A1 oxidase protein (CYP1A1 gene product). Benzo [a] pyrene is converted to its carcinogenic metabolite diol epoxide, which binds to specific hyper-mutable nucleotide sequences in the K-ras oncogene and p53 tumor suppressor [22]. Recent work by Roth et al. demonstrates that THC treatment of murine hepatoma cells caused a dose dependent increase in CYP1A1 gene transcription, while at the same time directly inhibiting the enzymatic activity of the gene product [23]. Thus, despite potentially higher levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons found in cannabis smoke compared to tobacco smoke (dependent on what part of the plant is smoked), the THC present in cannabis smoke should exert a protective effect against pro-carcinogens that require activation. In contrast, nicotine activates some CYP1A1 activities, thus potentially increasing the carcinogenic effects of tobacco smoke [24].

In plain english....the carinogens which are in MJ, which are the same as found in tobacco, are deadly...they are just inhibited by the THC in MJ.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Do you deny that cyanide is deadly? Because MJ has it in it, along with others. Do you know what the THC in MJ does to those carcinigens? Despite my having already told you, apparently not. I've already provided you with links that explain this already. But you refuse to acknowledge any of it.

BTW..here is another site explaining it also...

Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic (don't let the title fool you. You need to actually read the article to understand the title)



In plain english....the carinogens which are in MJ, which are the same as found in tobacco, are deadly...they are just inhibited by the THC in MJ.

First, the article says smoke, and as I've pointed out, there are about a million safer ways to consume cannabis. Second, it says potentially harmful. However, not all carcinogens are equal, and not all cause cancer. The dangers of carcinogens are that they can cause cancer, which you already denied trying to make a link to. So, if marijuana doesn't kill you with cancer, how does it kill you?

If it actually was harmful, we'd have a million studies and statistics showing how people are dying from it. Instead, we have numerous studies showing it has anti-tumor/anti-cancerous properties, and is even used by people going through chemo. All you have to do is show people dying from marijuana and I'll shut up and concede.

Deadly means you have to die, by the way.
 
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

First, the article says smoke, and as I've pointed out, there are about a million safer ways to consume cannabis.

I do believe that I have already stated that there are safer ways. The example I gave was of vaporizers. Did you forget? Do try and keep up.

Second, it says potentially harmful. However, not all carcinogens are equal, and not all cause cancer. The dangers of carcinogens are that they can cause cancer, which you already denied trying to make a link to. So, if marijuana doesn't kill you with cancer, how does it kill you?

Where have I stated that MJ kills you? What part is confusing you here? What is the very first line in that part that I quoted? (perhaps I should have outlined it in bright colors also?) "Smoke from tobacco and cannabis contains many of the same carcinogens and tumor promoters" Now..do you know what "tumors" are? If your answer was "cancer" you would be correct. IE both tobacco and marijuana have the same deadly carcinogens. The difference between tobacco and marijuana however is that THC inhibits those carcinogens. Nicotine however promotes them, or as the article states "activates" them. Are we going to have to get into the definitions of "inhibit" and "activates" here? Now, just because THC inhibits those deadly carcinogens that does not mean that they are not there. They still are. They are just being inhibited. By the THC.

If it actually was harmful, we'd have a million studies and statistics showing how people are dying from it. Instead, we have numerous studies showing it has anti-tumor/anti-cancerous properties, and is even used by people going through chemo. All you have to do is show people dying from marijuana and I'll shut up and concede.

No, you have numerous studies showing THC having anti-tumor/anti-cancerous properties. If all you give those cancer patients is THC without any other part of the marijuana plant it will have the same affect (if not better) as using the marijuana plant itself. (noting the caveat the article gives of "dependent on what part of the plant is smoked")
 
Last edited:
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

I do believe that I have already stated that there are safer ways. The example I gave was of vaporizers. Did you forget? Do try and keep up.



Where have I stated that MJ kills you? What part is confusing you here? What is the very first line in that part that I quoted? (perhaps I should have outlined it in bright colors also?) "Smoke from tobacco and cannabis contains many of the same carcinogens and tumor promoters" Now..do you know what "tumor promoters" are? If your answer was "cancer" you would be correct. IE both tobacco and marijuana have the same deadly carcinogens. The difference between tobacco and marijuana however is that THC inhibits those carcinogens. Nicotine however promotes them, or as the article states "activates" them. Are we going to have to get into the definitions of "inhibit" and "activates" here? Now, just because THC inhibits those deadly carcinogens that does not mean that they are not there. They still are. They are just being inhibited. By the THC.



No, you have numerous studies showing THC having anti-tumor/anti-cancerous properties. If all you give those cancer patients is THC without any other part of the marijuana plant it will have the same affect (if not better) as using the marijuana plant itself. (noting the caveat the article gives of "dependent on what part of the plant is smoked")

Deadly means you have to die, by the way.

Let's, for a minute, assume there are "deadly" carcinogens that get completely nullified by the THC. Who cares? That's like saying "You know, if water didn't have oxygen to counteract the hydrogen, we'd be drinking pure hydrogen which would kill us."

It's a nonsense argument. Let's look at the plant as a whole. I use it regularly and I've found it dramatically enriches my life. If there were negative effects, or even deadly ones, where are they?
 
Back
Top Bottom