Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 108

Thread: Drug czar: Feds won't support legalized pot

  1. #51
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

    Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    I actually have an issue. If even one person who didn't smoke because of the illegality of weed decided to try it after it was legalized, then legalization increased the usage of marijuana.
    Of course that hypothetical is true, and sure it might even happen with a few individuals, but it's been so rare in the experiences of other countries that it's barely even worth mentioning except to point out a technicality.

    If a significant number of people start using any drug after legalization, then we will have failed to properly implement the legalization policies; in particular, we will have failed to properly wage the "education & deglamorization" part of the war on drugs that has been so successful with tobacco.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    This is not accurate. Marijuana is absolutely physically addicting. Recent studies have discovered that human brains have "canabinoid" receptors...similar to opioid receptors, the things that make opiates so physically addicting. Though less addicting than opiates, cannabis creates similar affects that can define an addiction...the need for more to get the same effect, physical/psychological withdrawal when a heavy user stops, interference in life activities, etc... These canabiniod receptors also tend to trigger the opioid receptors, both increasing the addictive effect and lending potential credence to the "gateway effect" which, for the most part, has been disproven in coorelational studies from what I can remember. Regardless, marijuana NOT being physically addictive is a fallacy. Is it as addictive as alcohol, nicotine, or heroin? No.
    "Chronic marijuana use is associated with development of tolerance to some effects and the appearance of withdrawal symptoms (restlessness, irritability, mild agitation, insomnia, sleep disturbances, nausea, cramping) with the onset of abstinence. Depending on the measures and age group studied, 4 percent to 9 percent of marijuana users fulfill diagnostic criteria for substance dependence. Although some marijuana users develop dependence, they appear to be less likely to do so than users of alcohol and nicotine, and the abstinence syndrome is less severe. Like other drugs, dependence is more likely to occur in individuals with co-morbid psychiatric conditions."

    AMA - Report 6 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (A-01) Full t

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Further, as far as the medical benefits of marijuana, there certainly are some. They are, however, overruled by the negative effects, especially of smoking it.
    In most cases that's true, smoking as a method of delivery is very undesirable and they've been calling for more research to come up with less hazardous alternatives. But ultimately it should be up to doctors and their patients to decide whether the negatives outweigh the positives. The DEA (and the rest of us!) should butt the heck out of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    I believe that is why it remains a Schedule 1 drug.
    Probably so, and also because the IOM recommended that it remain Schedule 1 pending further research -- which was never authorized.
    Last edited by Binary_Digit; 07-25-09 at 06:54 PM.

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    This is not accurate. Marijuana is absolutely physically addicting. Recent studies have discovered that human brains have "canabinoid" receptors...similar to opioid receptors, the things that make opiates so physically addicting. Though less addicting than opiates, cannabis creates similar affects that can define an addiction...the need for more to get the same effect, physical/psychological withdrawal when a heavy user stops, interference in life activities, etc... These canabiniod receptors also tend to trigger the opioid receptors, both increasing the addictive effect and lending potential credence to the "gateway effect" which, for the most part, has been disproven in coorelational studies from what I can remember. Regardless, marijuana NOT being physically addictive is a fallacy. Is it as addictive as alcohol, nicotine, or heroin? No.

    Further, as far as the medical benefits of marijuana, there certainly are some. They are, however, overruled by the negative effects, especially of smoking it. I believe that is why it remains a Schedule 1 drug.
    What are the physical withdrawal symptoms of ceasing marijuana use? I was a very heavy smoker and stopped suddenly, I didn't experience any physical withdrawal; I donít know anybody who has.

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

    Quote Originally Posted by Binary_Digit View Post
    In most cases that's true, smoking as a method of delivery is very undesirable and they've been calling for more research to come up with less hazardous alternatives.
    Wouldn't vaporizers mitigate this?

  4. #54
    Educator Grateful Heart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    12-27-09 @ 03:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,010

    Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

    Quote Originally Posted by Binary_Digit View Post
    But ultimately it should be up to doctors and their patients to decide whether the negatives outweigh the positives. The DEA should butt the heck out of it.
    What percentage of marijuana smokers in this country are smoking on doctor's orders?


  5. #55
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,388

    Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I'm not arguing. I'm playing the devil's advocate, trying to get an actual argument from the pro-pot faction. Something more than, "a semi-logical argument", as one poster put it.
    You've not countered a single argument on the subject. Until you start actually debating nobody is really going to care what your opinion is.

    You're, "staying home to get stoned, instead of being at a bar getting drunk", position is the lamist of all,
    Two things: First...I didn't make that argument. Second, it's "lamest."

    because not only are folks going to be out drinking,
    Never said they wouldn't be. Show me where I did.

    they're going to be out smoking dope, too.
    Sure they will.

    You'll end up with non-drinkers and non-smokers getting buzzed from the second hand smoke and then driving home.
    Now this is the lamest argument thus far in the thread. Right there behind the "it'll damage our virtue" argument.
    *insert profound statement here*

  6. #56
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,388

    Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    This seems like a common misconception amongst the marijuana threads. No one is suggesting that drug laws have no affect on druge use, we're saying it has a negligible affect on drug use. It's an important distinction.
    Well I agree with that position, the problem is I've read folks on here stating it won't result in an increase. That's not really true. Negligible increase is still an increase, and that was really the point I was trying to make.

    I've seen pro-legalization proponents attacked on this board over a really insignificant mistake.
    *insert profound statement here*

  7. #57
    Dispenser of Negativity
    Cold Highway's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
    Last Seen
    12-24-12 @ 11:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    9,596
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Drug czar: Feds won't support legalized pot

    I figured as much Obama didnt have the stones to stand up to the drug war crowd.
    Jackboots always come in matched pairs, a left boot and a right boot.

  8. #58
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

    Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Roth View Post
    actually its worse than both

    "Reaction time for motor skills, such as driving, are reduced by 41% after smoking 1 joint and is reduced by 63% after smoking 2 joints"
    Please provide links when you quote something directly. I believe you are quoting from here, yes?

    marijuana statistics

    Let's take a look one of their other claims about marijuana and driving:

    "Data has shown that people high on marijuana show the same lack of coordination on standard "drunk driver" tests as do people who have had to much to drink."

    But here's a series of studies by the U.S. Department of Transportation:

    "Marijuana's effects on actual driving performance were assessed in a series of three studies wherein dose-effect relationships were measured in actual driving situations that progressively approached reality. (snip) Alcohol impaired performance relative to placebo but subjects did not perceive it. THC did not impair driving performance yet the subjects thought it had. These studies show that THC in single inhaled doses up to 300 g/kg has significant, yet not dramatic, dose-related impairing effects on driving performance."

    Marijuana And Actual Driving Performance* - Abstract

    And here's a study by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre in Austrailia:

    "The results of studies within the last 10 years have failed to present clear evidence for a role of cannabis in road crashes. The role of alcohol in all studies has proved to be dominant."

    Cannabis and Road Safety - Executive Summary

    So I wonder where "marijuana-addiction.info" is getting their "data" that shows pot smokers just as incapacitated as alcohol drinkers? And I wonder where they get the rest of their "data" as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Roth View Post
    "The daily use of 1 to 3 marijuana joints can produce the same lung damage and potential cancer risk as smoking five times as many cigarettes."
    Oops, another false assertion by the amatures at "marijuana-addiction.info."

    "The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer. The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years. "We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect.""

    Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection - washingtonpost.com


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Roth View Post
    the point i am trying to make and have been trying to make, is that with increased use there is increased numbers of addiction. and with addiction comes the losses, or do you think addiction also is beneficial?
    And the point I've already made, should you choose to acknowledge it, is that there is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use. So your assumption that marijuana use would substantially or even measurably increase upon legalization is based on a false premise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Roth View Post
    "The negative consequences of drug abuse affect not only individuals who abuse drugs but also their families and friends, various businesses, and government resources. Although many of these effects cannot be quantified, ONDCP recently reported that in 2002, the economic cost of drug abuse to the United States was $180.9 billion. "
    No argument here on the negative effects of drugs and addiction. Been there done that. Now please tell us what exactly does prohibition do to address these problems?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Roth View Post
    Wrong,
    i am talking about Abusers and the effect that a more socially executable drug such as Marijuana WILL have on the number of abusers, Not to mention the casual smokers who decide to get in their car after a join or 2 on a Saturday night

    "Children of individuals who abuse drugs often are abused or neglected as a result of the individuals' preoccupation with drugs. National-level studies have shown that parents who abuse drugs often put their need to obtain and abuse drugs before the health and welfare of their children."

    "Children whose parents and other family members abuse drugs often are physically or emotionally abused and often lack proper immunizations, medical care, dental care, and necessities such as food, water, and shelter. "

    "The economic impact of drug abuse on businesses whose employees abuse drugs can be significant. While many drug abusers are unable to attain or hold full-time employment, those who do work put others at risk, particularly when employed in positions where even a minor degree of impairment could be catastrophic; airline pilots, air traffic controllers, train operators, and bus drivers are just a few examples."
    1. Legalizing marijuana does not mean making it socially acceptable. You're making a lot of assumptions about that.

    2. Nobody is in favor of allowing people to drive or do other dangerous activities while stoned. Now please tell us what prohibition does to prevent that from happening?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Roth View Post
    unfortunately you forget not all people are responsible, in fact, it only takes one act of irresponsibility in the billions of decisions we make in our lives, to effect all those around you in a negative way.
    Yeah. If you have kids and don't raise them right, that can have a negative impact on me. It should be illegal for you to have kids unless you take classes and get a permit from the government first. I mean, we can't have people's personal choices impacting our lives in any remote or imaginable way right? How far down that slope are you willing to slip?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Roth View Post
    I dont Deny the Medical Benefits Of Marijuana, and i have not thus far, But what i have said is that The Drug has more adverse Effects than Benefits, and that all the Benefits you get from Medical Marijuana you can get from Already Produced alternatives without the Economic and Social impact that Marijuana can have and does Already have upon people.
    I explained why Marinol is not an acceptable alternative to smoked marijuana for many people, and that the pros and cons should be decided upon by doctors and patients, not the DEA or Joe the Plummer.

  9. #59
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

    Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Well I agree with that position, the problem is I've read folks on here stating it won't result in an increase. That's not really true. Negligible increase is still an increase, and that was really the point I was trying to make.

    I've seen pro-legalization proponents attacked on this board over a really insignificant mistake.
    I've tried not to sound like I'm saying there will be no increase whatsoever. Prohibitionists constantly assume that legalization would increase drug use, and their arguments are always in terms of social consequences. Which implies that the discussion is about trends on the macro level, not splitting hairs on the micro level.

  10. #60
    don't panic
    marduc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    10-22-17 @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,301

    Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    This is not accurate. Marijuana is absolutely physically addicting. Recent studies have discovered that human brains have "canabinoid" receptors...similar to opioid receptors, the things that make opiates so physically addicting. Though less addicting than opiates, cannabis creates similar affects that can define an addiction...the need for more to get the same effect, physical/psychological withdrawal when a heavy user stops, interference in life activities, etc... These canabiniod receptors also tend to trigger the opioid receptors, both increasing the addictive effect and lending potential credence to the "gateway effect" which, for the most part, has been disproven in coorelational studies from what I can remember. Regardless, marijuana NOT being physically addictive is a fallacy. Is it as addictive as alcohol, nicotine, or heroin? No.

    Further, as far as the medical benefits of marijuana, there certainly are some. They are, however, overruled by the negative effects, especially of smoking it. I believe that is why it remains a Schedule 1 drug.

    And our bodies produce their own endogenous cannabinoids such as anandamide which bind to the CB1 and CB2 receptors. So in order to assert that exocannabinoids such as THC and the myriad of others present in marijuana are addicting merely because our bodies have cannabinoid receptors, one would have to show that cessation of usage would actually inhibit the normal function of our endogenous cannabinoids. The mere presence of receptors does not necessitate addiction.

    If there were conclusive studies showing marijuana to be addictive (not the rats who were administered extremely high doses, and then subsequently administered cannabinoid blockers that also inhibit their naturally produced endogenous cannabinoids) they would be widely publicized as they would do miracles to bolster the ONDCP/DEA/DARE ect ect. positions.

    Am I saying marijuana is not addicting? no, not at all, there are a few who do develop addiction symptoms, however animals do not self administer, withdrawal symptoms almost never occur (sweaty palms/anxiety for chronic users being the sole exception, and likely psychosomatic). Marijuana has not been shown to cause a physical dependence, despite an intense desire to demonstrably prove this link.

    Those who do become addicted do so out of choice, just as they would choose to be addicted to video games, ice cream, skydiving, sex, ect. this is psychological dependence as a result of personality, and not to a physical dependence.

    I am sure you are well versed in the psychology part of all this

    This is still a red herring argument for its scheduling, and for the continued prohibition since for the most part those who have a propensity to abuse it already are. As has been hashed and rehashed, prohibition is not a significant deterrent to use.
    Last edited by marduc; 07-25-09 at 08:24 PM.

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •